How the Moscow Talks Are Like 'Seinfeld'
Nothing happened. But that might be just fine. Al-Monitor Washington correspondent Barbara Slavin on why talking without any results is better than not talking at all.
Not to be cynical, but it really doesn’t matter that the latest talks with Iran came up empty.
Outnumbered six to one, Iranian negotiators did a classic job in Moscow earlier this week (June 18-19) of defending past positions, raising old grievances and demanding concessions that they knew they would not get. US officials offered little and got nothing in return — but cannot be accused of “appeasement” in a presidential election year.
Even though US officials maintain that they are not talking for talks’ sake, they surely know that talking is better than many alternatives and that the exercise is not without merit. The Barack Obama administration has made enormous progress in consolidating an international coalition against the Iranian nuclear program. Holding these talks helps keep that coalition together.
Talking to Iran is also part of a robust containment strategy in place against the Islamic Republic since its inception. Other elements are economic sanctions, cyber war, other covert actions and heightened conventional military readiness in the Persian Gulf.
