Negotiating with Diplophobes

David Ignatius is slowly, but surely, shedding his fixation with the sixties and seventies and coming to terms with the modern world. It is finally dawning on him that things have changed since he was young. In a perceptive article he notes that Western negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapons development have gone nowhere for the simple reason that Iran refuses to negotiate in good faith. The Iranians, he argues, exhibit an obstinacy that can only be termed, "diplophobia."

Iran's implacability may have been the most important lesson of the three years of "negotiations" over its nuclear program....

[T]he Iranians displayed a similar refusal to negotiate during their long and bloody war with Iraq in the 1980s. The exhausted Iraqis made efforts to seek a negotiated peace, but the Iranians rejected their feelers.

Iranian "diplophobia" is currently on display every time President Ahmadinejad opens his mouth. The point to note here is that Ahmadinejad, except for his unusual bluntness, is not different from past Iranian leaders.

Optimists attribute this to disagreement among Iran's ruling elites, but Ignatius has a much more plausible explanation:

For a theocratic regime that claims a mandate from God, the very idea of compromise is anathema. Great issues of war and peace will be resolved by God's will, not by human negotiators. Better to lose than to bargain with the devil. Better to suffer physical hardship than humiliation.

And the problem is not just Iran. Ignatius notes:

This same blockage is evident in other conflicts with Muslim groups. Al-Qaeda doesn't seek negotiations or a political settlement, nor should the West imagine it could reach one with a group that demands that America and its allies withdraw altogether from the Muslim world.

And simply waiting for the Islamists to grow up and quit acting like malignant children is not going to work:

The West has placed its hopes on the political maturation of radical Muslim groups, figuring that as they assume responsibility, they will grow accustomed to the compromises that are essential to political life. But so far, there is little evidence to support this hope.

To this point Ignatius' analysis is solid. But then he embarks on a flight of wishful fantasy.

If it is impossible to negotiate with the Islamists, or to wait them out, then what is to be done if we are to avoid war?

Ignatius hopes that psychology will offer a solution. He writes:

A word that recurs in radical Muslim proclamations is "dignity." That is not a political demand, nor one that can be achieved through negotiation. Indeed, for groups that feel victimized, negotiation with a powerful adversary can itself be demeaning....

But, Ignatius hopes, it is possible to assuage the sense of inferiority that underlies Islamist radicalism.

The Muslim demand for respect isn't something that can be negotiated, but that doesn't mean the West shouldn't take it seriously. For as the Muslim world gains a greater sense of dignity in its dealings with the West, the fundamental weapon of Iran, al-Qaeda and Hamas will lose much of its potency.

Read it here.

Yeah, sure, and what would that entail? The only way the West can confer "dignity" on the Islamists is to accede to their demands, which would mean nuclearizing Iran and any other radical group that demands entry into the nuclear club, withdrawing from objectionable territory, assuming the aspect of dhimmitude in dealings with the Muslim world, and giving priority within our own lands to Islamic cultural and political demands.

To be succinct, that's not gonna happen.

President Bush, a far wiser man than his critics, understands that there is only one way out of this dilemma. That is to encourage the emergence of an effective alternative to the despots and Islamist radicals who, until recently, dominated the Muslim world. That is precisely what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and what we are encouraging elsewhere. The establishment of authentic Muslim democracies that can deal with the West on mutually respectful and dignified terms will create an alternative to the current dilemma -- the one Ignatius is beginning to understand.

It's a nice try! Ignatius is half right. It's been interesting to watch his intellectual development over the past several months. That maturation distinguishes him from most of his WaPo colleagues, who seem to be as inflexible in their core assumptions as Ahmadinejad, but he still has a long way to go. Let us wish him Godspeed.