Op-Ed: Diplomacy Between Iran and the Vatican

Iran’s noisy, confrontational, international style masks a much better diplomatic game, which they’re playing very effectively. Clashes with the U.S. over their nuclear program and arms to Iraq has inspired Iran to look for a mediator: the Pope.

Diplomacy matters, now that the talk of a military intervention by the US is so frequent, and in such high places. The US has found an ally in French President Sarkozy, and there’s now some reason to believe that the US won’t be left on its own in the UN when the Security Council is involved. Even China, which has interests with Iran, has supported the current level of sanctions, if not very enthusiastically at first. Iran now runs the risk of being backed into a corner. (There's actually quite a long genealogy of Iranian diplomatic stories on DJ. Just search "Iran", and you get pages of them.) Despite President Ahmedinedjad’s staggeringly insensitive public statements, somebody is obviously minding the store in Iran, and a new diplomatic front has opened up, in the Vatican. Iran is looking for a mediator, in case there’s a real confrontation with the US. Pope Benedict has previously assisted in mediation with Iran, notably the 15 British sailors released by Iran after being taken by Iranian vessels for encroaching on Iranian waters. The Pope sent a letter to the Iranian government, and the sailors were released almost immediately. The Pope has shown a lot of diplomatic ability since his investiture, and has been building bridges and mending damaged fences with the Islamic nations on a regular basis. His credibility in the Islamic world, on a political level, is good. He’s a modernist, a moderate, and highly educated. TIME magazine has an intriguing article on Iran’s efforts to enlist the Vatican as a mediator. Although it seems Western diplomacy is dealing with the idea on a more academic level, the Vatican has a few things to say on the subject: “If the situation heats up in the coming months, the question of exactly what role the Vatican would play could become pivotal. Says one high-ranking Vatican official: "The Iranians look to the Holy See with particular attention. It is born from our common religious matrix. This could be utilized to offer ourselves as an intermediary if the crisis worsens." Among the potential moves: a forceful series of public appeals by the Pope, a Vatican emissary sent to Washington and Tehran, or a visit to the Vatican by Iranian President President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.” This isn’t all bad news for the US, either. Defusing a conflict, or at least having a way of defusing a conflict, is always useful, in any context. It maintains diplomatic contact after parties have talked themselves out of direct communications with each other. Diplomats don’t start wars, either. Their default position is peace, unless otherwise instructed. The current situation between Iran and the US is a particularly difficult one. Iran is the nominal birthplace of the modern Islamic revolution, and has taken a series of positions championing various causes in the Middle East. It’s also the home of the Shi’a political/cultural ideology. Meaning being seen to back down to the West is out of the question. In my opinion the US hasn’t taken Iran’s political and regional position sufficiently into account. More room for compromise and negotiation, or at the very least an honest exchange of views, is required. The current position is like trying to fit two elephants into the same bathtub, when the elephants aren’t on good terms to start with. It’s not likely to be productive to put Iran in a position where it just can’t agree to whatever’s suggested, on principle. At best, even if Iran were obliged to back down on an issue, it would be a Pyrrhic victory for the US, winning a confrontational point only, at the expense of future problems. Internationally, it could backfire badly on the US. Iran’s other, non-ideological, points aren’t so easy to ignore. The issue of whether nations should be able to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes isn’t cosmetic. It’s a good point, and the US’ recent endorsement of India’s nuclear program suggests a double standard in a particularly unhelpful way. India isn’t even a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, although broadly it’s stayed pretty much within the framework of the treaty. India is also the traditional enemy of Pakistan, an Islamic nation. In terms of public relations, the US could do worse than at least give Iran a hearing on that subject on its merits. More damaging is the fact that the Iranian centrifuges are now producing fuel pellets, not weapons grade materials. In terms of factual information available to the world, the US is starting to look obsessive, rather than protective. Any form of diplomacy move which gets the US out of this trap, where it looks like it’s making quite unsupported allegations, would be helpful. Regionally, the present situation could keep anti-US factions gainfully employed for years, just reporting the misses in policy moves and public accusations. Iran is neither stupid nor clumsy in its diplomacy. It has non-Western avenues of income, it has regional connections, and it has a few valid points which can’t be dismissed as pure propaganda. Sovereignty, domestic policies, and trade rights aren’t trivial issues. In terms of international principles, even if every single word of every US statement was pure fact, the right of nations to determine their own energy, trade and domestic policies are legal positions, and should be addressed as such. The Pope may turn out to be the only method of conducting meaningful dialog between the US and Iran. If so, he’s got his work cut out for him.