Mennonite Weekly Review

While Christians strive to love our enemies, governments can be expected — at least — to confront adversaries responsibly. Efforts to encourage talks between the United States and Iran aim to raise U.S. policy to this standard.

Members of Congress, faith groups and other concerned citizens are challenging the notion that military threats and a refusal to negotiate are the only effective ways to deal with a perceived enemy.

President Bush sparked debate last month when he equated negotiation with “appeasement” in an address to the Israeli Knesset. But, as many observers pointed out, there is a big difference between talking and giving something away. In fact, the Bush administration has gained concessions from North Korea through diplomacy, and U.S. officials have already met with leaders of Syria.

Clearly, the United States does not base its foreign policy on the idea that diplomacy never works. Defense secretary Robert Gates has said he wants to talk with the Iranians. Not doing so assures a continued stalemate over Iran’s nuclear program.

U.S. and Iranian negotiators could find common ground in a shared interest in a secure and stable Middle East. Ideally, the first step toward resolving tensions would be the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This would not be a concession to Iran or to anyone else. It would move to strengthen the United States at home and abroad by ending an enormously costly foreign intervention.

Withdrawal from Iraq also would give the United States a chance for a new approach to its relationship with Iraq and Iran, after compiling a long record of mistakes.

These began with backing Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s repressive government in Iran from 1953 to 1979. This led to the Islamic revolution and the hostage crisis, from which U.S.-Iranian relations have never recovered. Then the United States supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980-88 war between Iran and Iraq, enabling the expansion of Iraq’s military strength. Today, the Iraq war has built up Iranian power, producing a new Iraqi government with close ties to Iran. In light of the results so far, U.S. officials might want to give non-intervention a try.

Among the advocates of a new approach is Mennonite Central Committee, which supports the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran. The campaign, with diverse religious and secular support, urges unconditional talks between the U.S. and Iranian governments.

Besides supporting legislation that calls for talks with Iran, MCC and individual Mennonites have organized and been part of several peace initiatives and exchanges of delegations. MCC announced this spring it would “redouble its advocacy efforts and increase people-to-people contacts with Iran.” Mennonite Church USA peace advocate Susan Mark Landis took part in a Fellowship of Reconciliation delegation to Iran last month, which she described as “a grassroots diplomacy mission hoping to prevent another war.”

Motivated by love of neighbor and a desire for peace, people of faith can build understanding through personal contact. Choosing diplomacy, U.S. officials can influence Iran more effectively than through military threats.