Time for a New Approach on Iran: Talking to the Enemy is Not Betrayal

The Canadian government’s proposal to reestablish diplomatic ties with Iran has sparked outrage among many Iranian Canadians, who see it as a betrayal of their struggles against the Islamic Republic. However, this reaction misses the point: engaging diplomatically with Tehran could be a more effective way to pressure the regime than simply cutting off relations.

Canada’s current approach of severing ties and imposing sanctions has not yielded any tangible benefits. In fact, Iranian embassies in the West have been known to engage in malign behavior, and diplomatic engagement can give Western countries additional leverage to apply pressure on Iran. Furthermore, sustaining people-to-people ties through trade, sports, and cultural exchanges can have a profound impact on a closed society like Iran’s.

This is not about condoning the regime’s atrocities or ignoring its human rights abuses. Rather, it’s about recognizing that nonengagement has failed to stop these crimes or yield any other tangible benefits. Canada now spearheads an annual UN resolution condemning Iran’s dismal human-rights record, but this is largely a symbolic gesture, as most European co-signers have embassies in Tehran.

The idea that diplomatic engagement would only legitimize the regime and give it a propaganda tool to silence its critics is flawed. Iranian hard-liners already view Western embassies and cultural institutes as dens of corrupting influence, and freedom-minded Iranians flock to international cultural spaces precisely because they threaten the regime’s monopoly on information.

Engaging diplomatically can also influence the complex factional politics inside the Iranian regime. For decades, there has been an internal debate over foreign policy, with some insiders pushing for toning down anti-Western extremism and cultivating relations with Western countries. By engaging diplomatically, Canada could help boost these critics to win the internal argument.

Critics of diplomatic engagement argue that it would only give Iran leverage to pressure Canada into dropping its support for Iranian civil-society actors or accepting concessions in return. However, this overlooks the fact that Canada has already had diplomatic relations with Iran in the past, and during that time, many of the regime’s heinous crimes against Iranians and Canadians occurred.

The 2015 nuclear deal saw significant diplomatic contacts between Iran and the West, including the United States and five other powerful countries signing a pact with Tehran. Although Canada played no role in this venture due to its lack of diplomatic ties, it highlights the opportunity cost of not engaging diplomatically. By reestablishing relations with Tehran, Canada could gain a seat at the table and contribute to shaping the regime’s behavior.

Canada should start talking to Iran. Talking to the enemy is not betrayal; it’s diplomacy. And it’s precisely because we’re so convinced that our current approach has failed that we should try something different.

What This Means for Canada’s Foreign Policy

The Canadian government’s proposal to reestablish diplomatic ties with Iran raises important questions about the country’s foreign policy direction. If successful, this move could signal a shift away from the current approach of severing ties and imposing sanctions. This would likely have significant implications for Canada’s relationships with other countries in the region, particularly its Gulf Arab allies.

Canada has long been seen as a vocal critic of Iran’s human rights record, but reestablishing diplomatic ties could allow it to play a more constructive role in shaping the regime’s behavior. In fact, some argue that engaging diplomatically with Tehran would be a more effective way to pressure the regime than simply cutting off relations.

A History of Failure

The past 14 years have seen several attempts to engage diplomatically with Iran, but each has ended in failure. The most significant was the 2015 nuclear deal, which saw the United States and five other powerful countries sign a pact with Tehran. Canada played no role in this venture due to its lack of diplomatic ties.

However, even though these efforts have failed, they demonstrate that engaging diplomatically with Iran is not impossible. In fact, some argue that nonengagement has been the primary driver of the regime’s intransigence and aggression.

The Role of Diplomatic Engagement

Diplomatic engagement can have a profound impact on a closed society like Iran’s. By engaging diplomatically, Western countries can gain additional leverage to apply pressure on the regime and influence its behavior. This is particularly important given the regime’s history of malign behavior in the region.

Critics argue that diplomatic engagement would only legitimize the regime and give it a propaganda tool to silence its critics. However, this overlooks the fact that Iranian hard-liners already view Western embassies and cultural institutes as dens of corrupting influence.

The Risks of Engagement

Engaging diplomatically with Iran carries risks, including the possibility that the regime could use diplomatic ties to pressure Canada into dropping its support for Iranian civil-society actors or accepting concessions in return. However, this is not necessarily a foregone conclusion, and some argue that engaging diplomatically could actually help to shift the internal dynamics within the regime and lead to a more moderate foreign policy.

In fact, the past 14 years have seen significant diplomatic contacts between Iran and the West, including the 2015 nuclear deal. Although Canada played no role in this venture due to its lack of diplomatic ties, it highlights the opportunity cost of not engaging diplomatically. By reestablishing relations with Tehran, Canada could gain a seat at the table and contribute to shaping the regime’s behavior.