Rosa Brooks:
A preschool lesson on Iran
Even little kids can learn to resolve conflicts.
Why can't the U.S. take a common-sense approach with Tehran?
May 12, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks12may12,1,108392.column?coll=la-util-opinion-commentary
ALL I NEED to know about international relations, I learned in kindergarten.
OK, I'm exaggerating: I should have said preschool. My oldest child is
only 4. Still, preschool offers great training for anyone interested in
improving U.S. foreign policy. Consider this scene, witnessed at the
sandbox:
Child one: "That's my shovel!"
Child two: "You already have a shovel! This is MY shovel!"
Child one: "I want ALL the shovels! I will KILL you!"
Child two: "I will KILL YOU MORE!"
To foreign policy aficionados, it's a familiar scenario; e.g.:
U.S. (per President Bush): "[Iran] will be dealt with…. "
Iran (per President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad):
"[The U.S. is] not capable of causing the least harm to the Iranian
people; they will suffer more."
U.S. (per U.N. Ambassador John Bolton): "If [Iran] continues … there
will be tangible and painful consequences."
Iran (per supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei): "Iran will respond
twofold to any attack."
U.S. (per Bush administration): "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah!"
In both the little sandbox and the big sandbox, conflicts like this
often end in tears. But tears aren't inevitable. Sensible grown-ups
de-escalate the situation by treating the little darlings like rational
people, even if they're not, and behaving in a way that establishes
clear expectations and respects the emotions of everyone concerned.
In preschool, the approach works like this: "Whoa, two shovels, and both
of you want both shovels. Can each of you explain why you need two
shovels? How can we can solve this problem without yelling?"
As a hardened observer of sandboxes big and small, trust me: When you
play it right, the warring parties end up contentedly building a
sandcastle together.
In the big sandbox, of course, there's no kindly teacher around, and one
of the children is a 500-pound gorilla. But the conflict resolution
principle is identical: Find ways to break the spiral of escalating
threats, let each party explain his perspective and seek face-saving
routes to common ground.
Apply that lesson to the potentially catastrophic nuclear contretemps
between Iran and the U.S., and perhaps we can ratchet down the danger level.
This week's lengthy letter from Ahmadinejad to Bush offers our best
opportunity yet.
Ahmadinejad's letter was intense, rambling and often disturbing. But he
voiced sentiments shared by millions within and outside the Islamic
world: suspicion of U.S. motives, distress about the widening global gap
between the haves and have-nots, and anger over the war in Iraq, the
status of the Palestinians and U.S. abuses in the war on terror.
More important, the letter was the first direct communication the U.S.
has had from Iran in 27 years, and it suggests that even Ahmadinejad,
one of the hardest of Iranian hard-liners, wants recognition and
dialogue with the U.S.
There have been other overtures. At the same time Ahmadinejad's letter
was made public, Hassan Rowhani, a senior representative of Khamenei
(and formerly Iran's top nuclear negotiator), released a memorandum
outlining specific concessions Iran is willing to make in its pursuit of
nuclear technologies. Iran is offering us a shovel — I mean, an olive
branch — if we have the wits to take it.
So far, though, the official U.S. response has been a determined thumb
to the nose. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for instance,
dismissed Ahmadinejad's letter as an "attack," not a genuine "diplomatic
opening." Rice couldn't be more dangerously wrong.
If we hope to gain support in the Islamic world for our policies on
Iranian nuclear development (or our overall foreign policy, for that
matter), we should respond seriously and respectfully to the issues the
letter raises. And if we want a peaceful resolution to the nuclear
crisis, we should seize the opportunity to reestablish direct
communication with Iran.
The U.S. cut diplomatic ties with the Iranians in 1980, a few months
after militant Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. But
two-thirds of Iranians alive today were under the age of 15 in 1980, and
it's past time for Americans to be pragmatic and move on. Specifically,
we need to stop acting like a bunch of mulish 4-year-olds and start
talking to the Iranians.
Direct talks with Iran won't be a panacea. Although they might produce
meaningful progress, they might fail. But without direct talks, efforts
to resolve the nuclear crisis diplomatically are almost certainly doomed
to failure — and the consequences will be far worse than just getting a
bit of playground sand in our eyes.
Condi? George? Dick? Rummy?
Time to start listening to your inner preschool teacher.
