It's hardly heresy for the US to talk to Iran

In the past 30 years, the United States has pondered regime change, military action, and containment as policies towards Iran. None have proved effective. Now President-ele ct Barack Obama is going to try engagement. In an interview recently, he pledged a "new approach". We should not get too starry-eyed about this.

Obama will not soon sip tea in Tehran with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and come away with his pledges to stop aiding extremists, abandon its nuclear weapons programme and recognise Israel.

If the political stars align, what we might see is the beginning of considerably lower-level diplomatic engagement, perhaps the establishment of a US diplomatic post in Tehran, and some people-to-people, cultural, and sporting exchanges.

Obama should remember, as Middle East expert Fouad Ajami has written, that the Iranian theocrats are "a skilled and crafty breed".

He should heed the warnings in a new Brookings Institution/Council on Foreign Relations report that the "process of engaging Iran will be protracted, arduous, and subject to shifts in Iran's internal dynamics" and does not preclude "tension or even conflict."

As it seeks to establish its empire in the Middle East, those who deem it heresy for the US to talk to its enemies should remember that the outgoing President George W. Bush has already started a low-level dialogue with Iran.

Seasoned statesmen know when and where to begin difficult negotiations. They do not let their presidents go face-to-face with foreign counterparts until there are reasonable expectations of civility and progress.

Before there is any hint of meetings at the presidential level, Obama should seek to elevate the level of discourse through some of the tough envoys available to him. Presumably, there will be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who once warned that the US would obliterate Iran if it nuked Israel.

There is Robert Gates, to be retained as Secretary of Defence. He has had harsh words for Iran's meddling in Iraq, but favours diplomacy and "soft power" before military action.

There is William Burns, a key figure in the tough negotiations on nuclear disarmament with Communist North Korea. Clinton is expected to retain him as under-secretary of State. Dennis Ross, longtime Middle East adviser, is expected to get the Iran portfolio. None of these are apostles of appeasement.

Discerning Tehran's readiness to negotiate is, as a headline in a piece by Ajami once put it, like going "back to the Iranian bazaar". But Ahmadinejad did send Obama a rare congratulatory letter upon his election. There are signs of political unrest in Iran.

Falling oil prices have wrought havoc with the economy. Elections are due in June, and Mohammad Khatami, a leading reformist who earlier served two terms as president, is threatening to run against Ahmadinejad.

This could be the time for Tehran to test a new American administration with its price for a more cooperative Iran. The Iranians might want to probe just exactly what, if any, long-term secret understandings there may be about the US military presence in Iraq.

They might want to discuss what "covert action" the US has under way to sabotage an Iranian nuclear weapons program. As reported by The New York Times, Bush had informed the Israelis of the covert action when he declined to supply Israel with materiel for an airstrike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Obama could offer relief from current sanctions. There could be unfreezing of blocked Iranian assets. There could be offers of economic cooperation. There could be diplomatic recognition. There could be cultural and sporting exchanges.

Obama campaigned on a platform of "change". It may now be time to see whether there is any change in US relations with a country that has widespread ability to spread war or peace in the Middle East.

John Hughes, a former editor of the Monitor, served as assistant secretary of State in the Reagan administration. He is a professor of international communications at Brigham Young University.