 |
|
Is diplomacy with Iran futile?
Experts gathered to debate US policy toward Iran, and then let the audience decide.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writerfrom the May 24, 2009 edition
Page 1 of 3
NEW YORK - Ask an auditorium full of smart, informed New Yorkers if diplomacy has a prayer of ending Iran's nuclear ambitions and, it turns out, they split evenly into three groups: the yeas, the nays, and the undecideds.
Then offer that same audience 90 minutes of cogent debate from four experts – including Liz Cheney, a State Department official under President Bush and the daughter of one very high-profile former vice president; and Nicholas Burns, a Clinton and Bush diplomat – and positions can shift.
When the debate (motion: "Diplomacy With Iran Is Going Nowhere") ended and audience members punched their keypads in "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire"-style, 59 percent opposed the motion. Give peace a chance, this audience seemed to say.
The debate, held earlier this month by Intelligence Squared US, was part of a forum that aims to bring a higher level of public discussion to top issues of the day. The audience confronted Iran's failure to respond to President Obama's proposal for unconditional talks, as well as the prospect for war if diplomacy is not at least attempted.
A surprise guest at the debate was the father of the only female debater. Dick Cheney kept mum during the event, but at a dinner afterward, he congratulated the teams for a provocative debate. "If diplomacy can work, of course we should try it," he said. He then added that he didn't think it could, because "our partners" are less intent on preventing a nuclear Iran than on restraining America from using military force.
Here are some of the debate's notable arguments on either side:
YES, Diplomacy beats another war
RSS feed
