In responding to the Jan. 7 CNN interview with Iranian President Mohamad Khatami, the United States has proposed discussions between government representatives. Talks not supported by a politically defensible rationale and a realistic agenda can quickly degenerate into disappointments and recriminations. American and Iranian representatives meet now at The Hague to implement post-hostage agreements on claims, but their mandate is limited.
Formidable obstacles face efforts to achieve a broader dialogue.
Opposition to the very idea of talking creates political risks for participants on both sides who cannot demonstrate acceptable progress. Pressures of politics, history, and ideology dictate agenda items that provide little hope for immediate results. Each of these items is closely tied to Iran's revolutionary experience, including its long war with Iraq. US approaches are likely to be met by verbal attacks on Israel, denials of allegations, and charges of US interference in Iran's affairs. Official talks have advantages Iran, for its part, would almost certainly call for an end to US sanctions against investments and trade and protest Washington's efforts to curb exports and technical help from Russia and China.