On the virtues of negotiating with Iran
Nobody denies the merits of good faith negotiations between sincere parties. What divides Republicans and Democrats on the issue of negotiating with Iran is that Republicans do not believe that Iran is interested in, or even capable of, negotiating in good faith. Is that a fair assessment? Let's look at a bit of recent history concerning Iran's nuclear enrichment program:
October 2003: EU offers Iran a generous package of economic incentives in exchange for abandoning its nuclear enrichment activities.
November 2003: Iran signs Paris Agreement, voluntarily abandoning its nuclear enrichment program, and entering into long-term negotiations with the EU.
November 2004: US says it "remains 'agnostic' regarding the value of negotiations between Iran and the EU 3"
August 2005: Iran begins enriching uranium.
June 2006: The EU submits another proposal to Iran, asking them to re-enter negotiations.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday Tehran would never yield to international pressure to suspend its nuclear program."Iran will never abandon its peaceful (nuclear) work. Our nuclear work is legal and why should we stop it?" Ahmadinejad told state television.
...
Two sets of U.N. sanctions have been imposed on Iran for defying Security Council resolutions demanding it suspend all nuclear fuel activity.Ahmadinejad said any further U.N. resolutions would not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear technology.
"Let's say they issue resolution number 300 ... what will happen? It should be remembered that Iran is obtaining nuclear technology. They have to eventually accept that," he said.
That doesn't exactly sound like a party that was ever interested in good faith negotiations. In fact, one might even believe that Ahmadinejad was simply stringing the EU along until he could get his centrifuges running.
So why exactly is it that we're negotiating with Iran on the issue of Iraq security? So that we can be played for chumps like the EU was?