[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 72 (Thursday, June 8, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1086-E1087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  COLUMNIST DAVID IGNATIUS: IT'S TIME TO CONNECT GLOBALLY, ESPECIALLY 
                               WITH IRAN

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 8, 2006

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce into the Record the 
commentary entitled ``It's Time To Engage With Iran'' written by David 
Ignatius and published in the May 25, 2006 issue of the Washington 
Post.
  Much of the diplomacy of the last 5 years has been confrontational, 
characterized by threats, ultimatums and labeling or ``name calling'' 
of leaders or countries perceived as threats by the Bush 
administration.
  With this threat diplomacy in mind, Mr. Ignatius offers some literary 
and policy advice. Quoting the last line of E.M. Forester's novel 
Howards End, Mr. Ignatius suggests ``Only connect'' as a good foreign 
policy for the United States.
  Ignatius suggests only connect is a useful injection in thinking 
``about U.S. strategy toward Iran and the wider conflicts between the 
West and the Muslim world.'' I agree.
  The U.S. could certainly have benefited from connections with our 
traditional allies before we invaded Iraq. Instead President Bush and 
Vice President Cheney unhelpfully labeled France, Germany and our other 
long-time and steadfast allies as ``the old Europe.'' Unbelievably, for 
a time, otherwise reasonable and sane members of Congress and of the 
administration insisted on calling french fries, freedom fries.
  The Bush administration's arrogance and hubris led the President and 
Vice President not merely to rebuff the countries who refused to let 
America lead them into war with Iraq but took every opportunity to 
disconnect from them. At every opportunity the Bush administration let 
our long-time friends know our connection with them did not matter. If 
they were not with us, they were against us. I believe there are those 
in Congress who regret the attitude represented by these words. Our 
``coalition of the willing'' has few member countries left and those 
that are left have few soldiers fighting in Iraq.
  During the first days of the Bush administration, the U.S. refused to 
meet with Iran at all. China finally convinced the U.S. to meet with 
Iran but when we did, our representatives sat in the conference room 
and announced the U.S. would not deal with Iran and then spoke no more. 
During the 1\1/2\ years we did not deal with Iran it forged ahead on 
its nuclear research and perhaps produced enriched plutonium. We just 
don't know.
  Ignatius writes that ``we are in the early stages of what the Centcom 
commander, Gen. John Abizaid, calls `the first war of globalization, 
between openness and closed societies.''' General Abizaid's advice was 
to ``expand openness and connection.'' According to Ignatius, General 
Abizaid called al-Qaeda ``the military arm of the closed order.'' The 
extremist mullahs in Tehran are leaders of a closed order.
  Ignatius writes that America's best strategy is connection and to 
play to its strengths, which he believes are the open exchange of 
ideas, backed up by unmatched military power.

[[Page E1087]]

  I believe we have nothing to fear from connecting with Iran, North 
Korea, China and Russia. We have much to fear from antagonizing these 
countries. Vice President Cheney recently called Russia 
``irresponsible,'' which angered President Putin of Russia. Name 
calling and labeling should not be used by any member of the 
administration. It is a backward, undiplomatic form of communications 
employed by schoolyard bullies not by high officials of a country like 
ours which must learn to live in peace with the other great powers in 
the world.
  We connected, engaged, with the Soviet Union in 1973 through the 
Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe, CSCE, even while 
conservatives warned that it was a dangerous concession that the 
Soviets might interpret as weakness. Instead the CSCE helped speed the 
fall of the Soviet Union. President Nixon was warned by conservatives 
not to go to China and yet an era of great diplomacy with China 
followed his trip.
  The column by David Ignatius points out that Ahmadinejad's letter to 
President Bush ``clearly had the backing of Iran's supreme leader, 
Ayatollah Ali Khameini.'' In the words of Ignatius ``that's like having 
the support of Vice President Cheney for a peace feeler.''
  According to Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian analyst with the 
International Crisis Group, opinion polls show that 75 percent of 
Iranians favor relations with the United States.
  There is no guarantee that a policy of engagement will work. But 
there are no other good options. We can have engagement with Iran and 
hope they will accept a package we can offer with our allies that will 
keep them from developing nuclear weapons, or we can learn to live with 
Iran as a nuclear power, or we can go to war with Iran. War with Iran 
would have unintended consequences we cannot imagine. It should be 
obvious that the first of these is the best option.

                     It's Time To Engage With Iran

                          (By David Ignatius)

       ``Only connect.'' That was the trademark line of E.M. 
     Forster's great novel ``Howards End.'' And it's a useful 
     injunction in thinking about U.S. strategy toward Iran and 
     the wider conflicts between the West and the Muslim world.
       We are in the early stages of what the Centcom commander, 
     Gen. John Abizaid, calls ``the first war of globalization, 
     between openness and closed societies.'' One key to winning 
     that war, Abizaid told a small group of reporters at the 
     Pentagon yesterday, is to expand openness and connection. He 
     called al-Qaeda ``the military arm of the closed order.'' The 
     same could be said of the extremist mullahs in Tehran who are 
     pushing for nuclear weapons.
       America's best strategy is to play to its strengths--which 
     are the open exchange of ideas, backed up by unmatched 
     military power. The need for connection is especially clear 
     in the case of Iran, which in isolation has remained frozen 
     in revolutionary zealotry like an exotic fruit in aspic. Yet 
     some in the Bush administration cling to the idea that 
     isolation is a good thing and that connectivity will somehow 
     weaken the West's position. That ignores the obvious lesson 
     of the past 40 years, which is that isolation has usually 
     failed (as in the cases of Cuba and North Korea), while 
     connectivity has usually succeeded (as in the cases of the 
     Soviet Union and China).
       A telling example was the decision to engage the Soviet 
     Union in 1973 through the Conference for Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe. At the time, some conservatives argued 
     that it was a dangerous concession that the Soviets might 
     interpret as a symbol of weakness. But the CSCE provided a 
     crucial forum for dissidents in Russia and Eastern Europe, 
     and with astonishing speed the mighty edifice of Soviet power 
     began to crumble. Similar warnings about showing weakness in 
     the face of an aggressive adversary were voiced when 
     President Richard Nixon went to China in February 1972.
       I cite this Cold War history because the moment has come 
     for America to attempt to engage revolutionary Iran. The 
     invitation for such a dialogue came this month in a letter to 
     President Bush from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--a 
     man whose rabble-rousing, Israel-baiting career gave him the 
     credentials, if that's the right word, to break a 27-year 
     Iranian taboo on contacts with the Great Satan.
       Ahmadinejad's letter clearly had the backing of Iran's 
     supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In the American 
     context, that's like having the support of Vice President 
     Cheney for a peace feeler. My own Iranian sources say there 
     is broad consensus in Tehran that it is time for talks with 
     the United States. ``Iran wants to start discussions the same 
     way the Chinese wanted discussions'' with Nixon, an Iranian 
     businessman named Ali Ettefagh told me in an e-mail this 
     week. ``Great Satan doesn't sell anymore. More than half the 
     population was not born 27 years ago, and the broken record 
     does not play well.'' The Iranian offer of dialogue, he says, 
     ``ought to be taken as an opportunity, if only to air out 
     grievances and amplify differences.''
       I suspect Iran wants dialogue now partly because it 
     perceives America's position in Iraq as weak and its own as 
     strong. That may be true, but so what? Washington should 
     still take yes for an answer. The United States and its 
     European allies this week are crafting a package that, one 
     hopes, will include everything the Iranian people could 
     want--except nuclear weapons. The bundle of goodies should 
     stress connectivity--more air travel to Iran, more 
     scholarships for students, more exchanges, Iranian membership 
     in the World Trade Organization. The mullahs may well reject 
     these incentives as threatening, but that's the point. Their 
     retrograde theocracy can't last long in an open world. This 
     very week, about 40 police officers were injured in a clash 
     with demonstrators at two Tehran universities. One of the 
     hand-lettered protest signs captured in an Iranian photo 
     said: ``This is not a seminary, it is a university. ``
       Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian analyst with the International 
     Crisis Group, noted in Senate testimony last week that 
     opinion polls show 75 percent of Iranians favor relations 
     with the United States. ``Embarking on a comprehensive 
     dialogue with Iran would provide the U.S. with the 
     opportunity to match its rhetorical commitment to Iranian 
     democracy and human rights with action,'' Sadjadpour said. 
     He's right.
       There's no guarantee that a policy of engagement will work. 
     The Iranian regime's desire to acquire nuclear weapons may be 
     so unyielding that Tehran and Washington will remain on a 
     collision course. But America and its allies will be in a 
     stronger position for responding to Iranian calls for 
     dialogue. Openness isn't a concession by America, it's a 
     strategic weapon.

                          ____________________