The Pitfalls of Pseudo-Engagement

Going through the motions of a negotiation without having any intention of finding a compromise is how hawks seek to discredit engagement by making it seem useless.

Iran keeps rejecting the Trump administration’s unrealistic demands on the nuclear issue:

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said U.S. demands that Tehran stop enriching uranium are "excessive and outrageous", state media reported, voicing doubts whether talks on a new nuclear deal will succeed.

"I don't think nuclear talks with the U.S. will bring results. I don't know what will happen," Khamenei said, adding that Washington should avoid making "nonsense" demands in the negotiations, four rounds of which have been held.

The administration has no interest in bridging this gap. The indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran are not likely to go on much longer at this rate. The writing has been on the wall from the start of this farcical process that the U.S. is not seriously committed to making these negotiations work. Trump and his allies want to be in a position where they can claim that they tried diplomacy and blame Iran for the failure of the talks. This is why they pile on demands that they know Iran will never accept even when there is a straightforward compromise available that would produce a real diplomatic breakthrough.

A new nonproliferation agreement would be in the best interests of all concerned. It would resolve the nuclear issue for the foreseeable future, reduce tensions, and eliminate the hawks’ favorite excuse for starting a war. It could also serve as a foundation for more sustained engagement later on. That is why Trump’s approach to the negotiations is so terrible for the U.S. and Iran. It is not a serious attempt to reach a diplomatic solution. It is an exercise in hawkish posturing, and it always has been. That not only dooms negotiations now, but it also poisons the well for diplomacy in the coming years.

When our government practices pseudo-engagement, it undermines the credibility of the diplomatic option. Going through the motions of a negotiation without having any intention of finding a compromise is how hawks seek to discredit engagement by making it seem useless. It is usually easy to distinguish between pseudo-engagement and the real thing by looking at the nature of the demands that the U.S. is making. If the demands are far-reaching and the proposed offer is meager, that isn’t a real attempt to resolve through negotiations. It is setting the stage for conflict or permanent sanctions.

This sort of pseudo-engagement has real costs both now and in the future. Trump’s handling of negotiations with North Korea convinced Kim that there was no reason to negotiate with the U.S. again. Since the collapse of talks at Hanoi, North Korea has shown no interest in coming back to the table. The charade of these indirect talks is likely to lead to the same result with Iran. Even if there is no conflict immediately following the collapse of talks, pseudo-engagement effectively closes off the best path for making war less likely in the future.

Trump’s mishandling of North Korea was arguably one of the two biggest failures of his first term. He squandered an extraordinary opportunity to limit the expansion of North Korea’s arsenal. Thanks to Trump’s mindless maximalism and the hardliners he appointed to run his foreign policy, Kim concluded that diplomacy with the U.S. was worthless. It is possible that the North Korean government may not negotiate with the U.S. again for another generation. That is what happens when we have a leader who treats diplomacy as if it were a game show or an episode of reality television.

The Trump administration has made almost all the same mistakes with Iran. Trump began his new term with a return to the same bankrupt policy that had completely failed the first term. He sent a letter with an extreme ultimatum that no government would accept, and he repeatedly issued reckless threats of military action if Iran didn’t comply. Trump’s heavy-handed coercive tactics have failed to impress or intimidate the Iranians, and all they have managed to do is put him on a path to starting an unnecessary war.