In a startling contradiction of his administration’s foreign policy principles (or ideologies to be exact), the Bush administration is slowly developing methods in dealing with Iran diplomatically, now that military options are off the table, as Admiral Fallon’s resignation indicated earlier. While continuing to threaten and saber rattle on Iran rhetorically, the Bush administration seems to have adopted an approach that seeks to isolate Iran economically and politically in an effort to achieve concessions from Iranian hardliners.

Despite Bush’s hard-line rhetoric towards Iran in the past, its tone has ameliorated somewhat in the last several weeks. This is in part due to the fact that Bush has virtually run out of options and understands well enough that in its remaining year in office he cannot afford another war, nor to waste any more time before election 08′ to move towards a diplomatic solution with Iran. While the Bush administration continues to emit soundbytes about Iranian nuclear threat, it understands perfectly well that the much larger and realistic threat Iran poses chiefly to the US interests is its influence in Iraq, which has been effectively illustrated by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Iraq. Watch the video below to see the political reasons behind this visit:

In addition, the Bush administration was hopeful that the hardliners in Iran would lose some of its power in recent Iranian elections, but those hopes turned out to be nothing more than another Faith Based Initiative as hardliners held on to power. The same fate is likely to be true to Mr. Ahmadinejad himself when he faces re-election next year. Hence, the Bush administration faces two equally difficult choices: engage Iran diplomatically or wait it out until the next administration takes office in 08′. According to an analytical and thoughtful article written in Asia Times Online, the Bush administration has chosen to carefully and inconspicuously engage Iran. First came Kissinger’s call for bilateral and direct talks with Iran, who also happens to consult the Bush administration; then came Bush’s radio interview aired in Iran in which Bush didn’t even mention “not taking any options off the table”. In fact, the article says,

He held out none of the customary threats against Iran. This time, there was not even the trademark insistence that “all options are on the table”. There were no barbs aimed at President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Least of all, there were no calls for a regime change in Tehran. Bush simply said something that he might as well have said about Saudi Arabia or Egypt. As he put it, “So this is a regime and a society that’s got a long way to go [in reform].”

Hence, like it or not, negotiations have already begun. According to the article,

Arguably, Bush’s interviews signify that “unconditional talks” may have begun with Iran. Everything - almost everything - he said indeed had a caveat. But then, isn’t that how negotiations commence without loss of face between any two stubborn adversaries?

However, despite Bush’s apparent willingness to preempt Barack Obama, whom he and his right-wing affiliates has castigated for the same willingness to hold direct talks with Iran and other adversaries, Bush’s tactic still seems to smell of hardline approach. The recent nuclear accord signed between Bahrain and US seems to “further isolate Iran”, according to Bloomberg.com. It appears that Bush is not ready to sit down across the table with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yet. But the better question is: what’s in it for Iran?

The conservative leadership in Iran has won elections, Iran continues to have an enormous influence in Iraq and it sees the Bush administration as essentially castrated to launch another war, though the idea of that may still linger on their minds. To be sure, Iran can gain a lot from dealing with the United States, mostly in terms of security, but it must also be prepared to stop enrichment of uranium, and concede in Iraq. The question for the Iranian leadership is: is it more beneficial to engage with US now or wait out until the next administration takes office in 08′?

While Barack Obama has pledged to sit down with its adversaries, which presumably includes Iran, John McCain and Hillary Clinton have both expressed reserved skepticism about this sort of approach. While seemingly obvious that Barack Obama would be the more friendly party to deal with than either Bush/McCain, it may not be necessarily true. Barack Obama is likely to have a policy shift in Israel-Palestinian conflict, which means some concessions on the part of Israel. This in theory should build a better relationship between the two states, thus stripping Iran of its influence and bellicose rhetoric. Barack Obama is also more likely than McCain/Clinton to build more lasting relationships with other Middle Eastern countries, which would further isolate Iran. If Obama is able to accomplish any of these goals even partially, hence paving a way towards holding direct talks with Iran, it’s quite plausible that Iran will lose some of its leverage in dealing with Obama, as opposed to with Bush/McCain.

It’s difficult to predict exactly what strategic diplomatic route the Bush administration and Iranian leadership decide to take, but one conclusion remains clear: negotiation with Iran is already in progress. It turns out that Barack Obama was right after all!