When you take diplomacy off the table, war is all that remains

With the recent brouhaha concerning Obama’s willingness to talk to Iran, and the Right’s insistence that doing so invites the Apocalypse, two of my favorite quotes on diplomacy sprang to mind.

To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war. – Winston Churchill
War is merely a continuation of politics by other means. – Carl Von Clausewitz

Look, this is pretty simple when you get down to brass tacks. The US has two options for dealing with Iran; diplomacy or war. Iran cannot be bullied by sanctions because she sits on a sea of oil. Nor can we effectively browbeat them in the UN and the like because frankly, they don’t give a fuck. So what else is left?

We could, as Bush and McCain seem to desire, start a third war in the Middle East but that is, at this juncture, pretty dim-witted. Or, we could sit down and talk. Not capitulate, roll over or appease, but set up an agenda and talk. For some reason, the Right believes that if we go to the table with Ahmadinejad, we will forget how to say no and hand over Saudi Arabia or something. Simply talking to adversaries does not equate to Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hilter, nor should it be considered a sign of weakness. If Chris Matthews can draw that conclusion, then the 70% of the nation with their head not firmly sequestered in their rectum can figure that out as well.

And if it comes down to it and Iran gets serious about attacking its neighbors, I think military action can and should be used but we are a long way from that point. Right now, we still have options. Conversely, by swearing off negotiations, the US is all but guaranteeing that our conflict with Iran ends in bloodshed. This “no negotiation” policy is painting our foreign policy into a corner. How stupid is that?