Hostage to Events

In an exclusive interview, the State Department's leading Iran expert discusses his resignation and why the Islamic Republic and the United States keep on talking past each other.

BY BARBARA SLAVIN | JULY 27, 2010

John Limbert knows better than anyone not to have high expectations about U.S.-Iran relations.

One of 52 Americans held hostage by Iranians for 444 days in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Limbert came back from retirement nine months ago to head the State Department's Iran desk in hopes he could help end the bitter enmity between the U.S. and Iran.

Those hopes have been dashed as Iran rejected U.S. overtures and the Obama administration pivoted to a familiar pattern of economic sanctions.

On Friday, Limbert is stepping down from his position. In an interview Tuesday -- his first since rumors of his departure were confirmed earlier this month -- he said he had promised the U.S. Naval Academy, where he had been teaching history and political science, that he would return for the fall semester. But he acknowledged personal regret that U.S.- Iran relations have not made more progress.

"I have the sense right now that we -- the Obama administration writ large -- are not in the place we wanted to be," Limbert said. While he said the administration is determined to pursue efforts to negotiate with Iran, he fears that both countries risk regressing to the dysfunctional pattern that has kept them largely at odds for three decades.

"Here's the problem," Limbert said. "For 30 years, careers were made both here and in Tehran by how nasty you could be to the other side and how creative you could be in being nasty to the other side. So if you're going to change that, what happens if it doesn't get some immediate result? It's very easy to slip back into what you always have been doing."

Limbert says he worked hard during his tenure to tone down the language U.S. officials employed in talking about Iran during George W. Bush's administration.

"Phrases like ‘They have to change their behavior' -- this kind of preachy sermonizing," he said, referring to a phrase often used by former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, "do not create much confidence." Limbert said he sought to "make things less judgmental, more professional." As a result, "We are perhaps doing less yelling at each other. That's a pretty small step but compared to what's gone on over the last 30 years, maybe it's more important."

Still, it's hard not to view Limbert's departure as a turning point and yet another missed opportunity in U.S.-Iran relations. A number of players with more skeptical views about the prospect of rapprochement with Tehran -- such as White House aide Dennis Ross and nonproliferation experts like Robert Einhorn and Gary Samore -- appear to be driving U.S. policy now, and the president himself blames the Iranian government for failing to respond to his outreach.

Limbert, a scholar of Persian history and poetry and former Peace Corps worker in Iran who is fluent in Farsi and whose wife, Parvaneh, is Iranian, wrote a book about how to negotiate with Iran for the U.S. Institute of Peace. He is also the only American official who has met Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- during the hostage crisis before Khamenei became Iran's president and then supreme leader.

"I believe his departure is a loss for the Department of State," says Haleh Esfandiari, head of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "John is not only a skilled diplomat but a historian, versed in Iranian history. He speaks the language just like a native, he knows the literature and he understands the mentality and the way Iranians think. As far as I remember John is the most qualified person on the Iran team at State in the three decades I have lived in the United States. He would have made an ideal negotiator if ever the U.S. and Iran sit across the table to talk."

"John is an exceptional diplomat and a really fine human being," said William Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs and a leading administration player on Iran. "We were fortunate that he agreed to return temporarily to government service, and we hope to continue to draw on his insights and experience. I deeply admire his commitment to trying to build better understanding between Iranians and Americans, with no illusions about the challenges involved."

BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images

 

Barbara Slavin, a former diplomatic correspondent for USA Today and assistant managing editor of the Washington Times, is the author of Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S., and the Twisted Path to Confrontation. She has been to Iran seven times.

SAINTSIMON

6:31 AM ET

July 28, 2010

This guy a perfect example of

This guy a perfect example of why diplomacy founded on idealist yearning is hollow and unsustainable - Iran wants the bomb, pure and simple, it's central to their aspirations, and therefore there's only three things that are gonna happen here 1 regime change which possibly, but only possibly, modifies to our benefit the nature of their aspirations 2 they get the bomb 3 we stop them by whatever means from getting the bomb. There's nothing to be negotiated here - all there is is long term strategic calculation or submission.

It's as if Elizabeth had tried to send Walsingham to negotiate directly with Philip to put an end to that whole Armada thing - I'm sure ol' Francis would have recognized the futile idiocy of such a venture and instructed a few of his henchmen to put knives to royal bodice - there was nothing to be negotiated, Philip wanted what he wanted - you either renounce your heresy and become a vassal of Spain or you make ready your defenses.

Are we gonna fret over some academic who likes Persian poetry feeling all sad about how foolish people can be - or are we gonna defend ourselves?

 

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

10:01 AM ET

July 28, 2010

Wait on

What makes you think Iran wants a nuclear bomb? Iran denies it and there is no more evidence for it than there was for Saddam’s WMDs. Why should Iran wish to initiate an attack against anyone? Sure, Iran is opposed to the Zionist regime in Palestine and finds US hegemonic aspirations distasteful, but these are attitudes held by most of the rest of the world and it is scarcely necessary to do anything dramatic about either since both are more than able to destroy themselves and, indeed, appear already somewhat advanced in that direction. A greater concern is that the US and Israel may not collapse with the geometric neatness of the WTC towers but may take many of the rest of us along with them.

As for your historical excursion, you are mistaken; the circumstances bear no such comparison. If you are looking for something to draw from that era, you might better consider the remarkable success England had keeping afloat and thriving between so many more powerful and greedy neighbours, and the resounding defeat she inflicted on Phillip whose empire was so soon to pass away.

 

BENJAMINFRANKLIN

11:52 AM ET

July 28, 2010

Diplomacy was a useful gesture, but never a likely solution.

Why would anyone think that we would be able to successfully negotiate with a megalomaniac and ruthless dictator? I think the chief value of offering him an olive branch was getting more support for firm sanctions from major European countries. Iraq and Afghanistan provide plenty of warning about how a war would be likely to go, so I think we're on the right course.

 

SLEDGE_HAMMER

12:09 PM ET

July 28, 2010

Limbert is insane

I think those 444 days affected Limbert's brain...if he hasn't figured out by now that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a rogue state that is seeking to build a nuclear bomb with which to threaten Israel and the rest of the West then he definitely has been permanently damaged while in captivity. What's next? Is he going to become like Ramsey Clark and go defend some of those war ciminals in Iran and Gaza?

 

DDSNAIK

1:27 PM ET

July 28, 2010

Inexplicable vitriole towards Dr. Limbert

I'm not making predictions on the outcome of our dance with Iran, or stating whether Iran's denials of nuclear militancy are sincere or not. However, the comments disparaging or speculating on Dr. Limbert's competency and judgement are baffling.

His academic, personal, and professional backgrounds make him imminently qualified to occupy an appropriate position of diplomacy or negotiations or dialogue. Safe to say, he is significantly a more credible source of input than the amateur historians/journalists/geopoliticians (like us) that post on an online (and relatively anonymous) forum and have probably never seen this side of a crisis or spent any significant time either studying or practicing the relevant subject matter.

Furthermore, nowhere in his comments is there a hint of capitulation or apology or so on. His desire for frank engagement and candid acknowledgement of issues on both side is probably a good blueprint, certainly a better way forward than the ham-handed, provocative confrontational chatter to which both sides subscribe.

 

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

3:04 PM ET

July 28, 2010

It may be too late

The situation that the US and Israel have created in that whole area is now so volatile it may not be possible peaceably to defuse it, although the Iran, Brazil, Turkey agreement might, as Lambert suggests, profitably have been given some serious attention instead of being tetchily dismissed. The die may well be cast and the US/Israel axis destined further to provoke a country of well over 70 million people with 3000 years of recorded history and the demonstrable ability to respond for eight years to a US supported Iraqi invasion. Sooner or later China or Russia may have to step in to put a stop to these insanities which make the world unsafe and its people unhappy.

 

POLDERMAN

4:31 PM ET

July 28, 2010

DDSNAIK, you are right on target

DDSNAIK, you are right on target concerning the character of some of the above comments.
I would trust the knowledge and opinion of dr. Limbert any day over those armchair analysts who got us into the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The ‘experts’ from these so-called think tanks and lobby groups are only promoting there own agenda, wrapped of course in detached objectivity, and casually omitting, distorting and creating facts to get their message across.

It is not Iran that made war in North America and has 50.000 troops in Mexico and a 100.000 in Canada. It is not Iran that has its navy in the Gulf of Mexico. It is not Iran that authorised covert actions in the US to bring about regime change. It is not Iran that says “all options are on the table” if the US doesn’t abstain from developing nuclear arms.
Of course this is a ridiculous comparison. The Iranian defence budget is only a tiny fragment of the US military budget.

Try to look at it from the Iranian point of view. Back in the fifties the US and the UK toppled a democratic elected government, which wanted to nationalise the oil wells. In return the Iranians got a regime change with the Shah, who bought billions of dollars of western arms and raised a western trained secret service who tortured and killed thousands of opponents. It didn’t work (it actually never does, but that another story) and in came the mullah’s in 1979.
So 1980 Saddam Hussein invaded Iran with the tacit support of the US. At the cost of eight years of war and a million Iranian casualties, the Iraqis were finally driven out.

As an Iranian, seeing this recent history, wouldn’t you be a bit suspicious of Western (US) intentions? The growing western confrontation with Iran, through sanctions, makes a liberalisation as advocated by the Green Movement only more difficult and distant. And it only hardened their stand that they are unjustly singled out by the West, because of their criticism on Western domination in the Middle East.
I don’t think the Iranians want to develop nuclear arms. They are to smart for that, but the idea they might, surely turns out to be a great way to provoke and irritate the West.

Why would they want nuclear arms anyway? They can look around in the world. North Korea has them, and it is still the most miserable, poor and isolated place on the earth. Pakistan has them, and it didn’t prevent them from sliding to a situation of virtual civil war. Israel has them and it not an inch more secure than before, conflicts are still brewing all along her borders
Iran already knows that possession of nuclear arms in this century, in order to feel secure from enemy attacks, is one great delusion.

 

BAN

6:01 PM ET

July 28, 2010

Ms. Slavin, the so-called Iran expert that wasn't

It never ceases to amaze me how journalists like Ms. Slavin who claims to be an Iran expert comes up with some of these bizarre theories about Iran. We Iranian analysts and activists who have tried to dialogue with this lady to explain and deconstruct thing for her have met with the most outrageous attitude...almost imperious, like we're all just a bunch of seething liars who make up stuff to discredit that regime...as if in their case truth isn't stranger than fiction.

The bottom line is that the self-styled pundits who may have visited Iran understand nothing because they never bother to interact with anyone who doesn't fit their cookie cutter mentality and they use countries like Iran in order to work out their emotional baggage-cum-idology.

Oh and by the way Ms. Slavin, when will you learn that Trita Parsi is not someone to quote...that a disreputable lobbyist of the regime in Tehran (who has wormed his way into high places in Washington with the aid of character LIKE John Limbert, Brzezinski and so on) does not give veracious information?

 

AARKY

6:41 PM ET

July 28, 2010

Hostage to Events

First time to post here and I notice a lot of trolls from IAPAC and other assorted Israeli propaganda groups. I'm surprised we didn't see any comments by Joe Leiberman. We should have seen the writing on the wall when both Obama and Clinton were grovelling in front of AIPAC before the 2008 election. We have also seen their parroting of the talking points of the Likkudniks since the election.
If this nation is really serious about better relations with Iran a number of things need done and it has to start with Obama. 1. Publicly disavow the secret Bush program from 2007 in which hundreds of millions of dollars were to be spent to destabilize the Iranian Government. 2. Pull our Special Ops troops out of Iran. 3. Stop the wild accusations that Iran is building nukes(They are not). 4. Ask them to allow a US Special Interest section in Tehran. They already have one in Washington DC. 5. Stop most of the ridiculous sanctions against Iran 6. Allow them landing rights in the US for their major airline-Iran Air. 7. Fire Dennis Ross who is expert at moving the goal posts and fire just about everyone at the Iran desk at State. 8. Have a team from the US airlines do any negotiating with the Iranians and our problems will be over in a couple months. Outside negotiations are needed because State is just as poisoned toward Iran as they are towards Cuba. No poster here even realizes that a number of large US airlines overfly Iran on a daily basis and my brother tells me the Air traffic controllers are very professional and the same for Cuba. 9. Fire Rahm Emanual if he even hicups about the needed changes. Why should we trust this man to help advise the President when he brings his son to Jerusalem for his Bar Mitzvah.

 

DAVEKIMBLE

6:47 PM ET

July 28, 2010

Obama never gave diplomacy a chance

The first step in Obama's so-called engagement with Iran was his Nowruz speech of 21 March 2009, however 10 days previously he had renewed Bush's sanctions on Iran on the grounds that they posed "a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States."

Not surprisingly, that received a frosty reception from Khamenei, who said "Have you released the possessions of the Iranian nation? Have you removed the cruel sanctions? Have you stopped the insults, accusations, and negative propaganda against this great nation and its officials? Have you stopped your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? What has changed? They talk of change, but there are no changes in actions. We have not seen any changes. Even the literature has not changed." - All of which is true.

This could not possibly have happened by accident. It was a deliberate attempt to make sure that diplomacy didn't work.

The same thing happened at the nuclear talks in Vienna, when on the eve of the talks, the US announced the "secret enrichment facility" near Qom, which they would have known about from satellite pictures for several years before. When the IAEA inspected the site, ElBaradei confirmed it was an empty hole in the ground, just like the Iranians said it was. Again this was a deliberate attempt to disrupt the talks.

And when the Iranians announced their deal with Turkey and Brazil over enriched fuel, which answered all the US's problems, the US ignored it and went ahead with yet more sanctions.

The only possible interpretation of all this is that the US doesn't want rapprochement, and since war will likely result in the major disruption of oil markets, Bush's policy of containment with sabre-rattling and sanctions continues - no change.

 

LOLCAT

7:49 PM ET

July 28, 2010

I don't think anyone knows

I don't think anyone knows the real reasons why he chosen to resign.It may be that all his expert suggestions were shoved under the carpet by the powers that in Washington.

And if case is like,I will not blame or call him names.Because we know that if he tries to open his mouth too much,We may be lucky to hear that had a accident and died