REMEMBER IRAN?

Posted at 8:14 a.m.ET

Iranian-rights sparkplug Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi alerts me to this excellent analysis, by Amir Taheri, of the president elect's intention to negotiate with Iran.  Iran has been on the back burner recently, but don't expect that to last.  Their nuclear program is roaring ahead.  Taheri:

It was almost two years ago when Barack Obama unveiled his hope for establishing a dialogue with Tehran. Since then, his circle of admirers have presented that hope as an epoch-making innovation, a kind of magic wand that, once waved, would transform the Khomeinist regime from wolf to lamb.

Last Monday, however, Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former President of the Islamic Republic and still a key player in Tehran's complex political game, decided to set the record straight...

..."It is thirty years that you have always wanted to talk to us," he said, addressing Obama. "And it is thirty years that we have refused to talk to you. How could you expect us to talk to you now that you are fixing even heavier preconditions for such talks [to take place]?"

Translated:  The mullahs don't care who's president.  They negotiate only on their own terms.

Taheri points out that Carter, Reagan and Bush 41 all tried to reason with the mullahs, and all failed.  And...

President Bill Clinton went a step further by apologizing to the mullahs for unspecific wrongs that the US had supposedly done to Iran. He lifted some of the sanctions imposed by Carter, Reagan and Bush, and ignored FBI reports documenting Tehran's involvement in attacks against American targets in the region.

Presenting his scheme with the grandiose title of "The Grand Bargain", Clinton offered the mullahs what amounted to a mini-Yalta agreement under which Iran would secure its own zone of influence in the region in exchange for recognizing a similar zone for the US.

The whole thing collapsed.

And the current Bush?

Bush ruled out bilateral talks because he had learned a crucial lesson from the failures of his predecessors. He knew that the mullahs had tantalized successive US administrations with the prospect of talks only to make sure that they faced no American moves against their regime. Once they were sure of that, they had no further interest in talks. However, even George W Bush was to end up being seduced by the prospect of a deal with the mullahs. In May 2006, his new Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice surprised the world by offering direct unconditional talks with the mullahs. Tehran simply ignored the American move. Rice will be leaving office without having received a formal response to her offer.

And Obama?

Rafsanjani showed that he has a far deeper understanding of the problem than Obama.

"Your problem is not with our nuclear program or human rights," he said. "Your problem is with the very nature of our regime."

We hope so.  We certainly hope so.  But Obama hasn't played his cards yet.

Finally...

For all that, it is quite possible that Tehran will welcome Obama's offer of direct talks in a bid to obtain assurances that the US will not help those who seek regime change in Tehran. However, one thing is certain: once the mullahs obtain what they want they will not be prepared to offer any concessions. Obama's head has a good chance of ending up next to those of his predecessors who deluded themselves into believing that they can make a fair deal with the mullahs.

Remember, Rafsanjani has already given the warning.

We have ignored so many warnings.  This will be one of the greatest challenges Obama will face.  He will face it together with his new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.  It won't take long for us to know where they really stand.

December 13, 2008.