Wars don’t end on the battlefield; they end at the treaty table. There are few historical instances where everyone on the losing side simply died. Even thought they were soundly defeated, even Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan came to the table to surrender unconditionally. Events in Gaza show the difficulty of ending a conflict when the sides communicate only indirectly. Ending such a conflict requires first determining whether the terrorists are a coherent group or an ideology and also whether the sides are locked into fundamentally incompatible positions in both short- and long-term. Only when it is clear that both sides are groups with identified, effective leaders and that their positions allow some negotiation is it useful to consider how to communicate.
When is it useful to negotiate? Before considering the goals or means of a negotiation, we have to ask whether the other side is able to give what is needed. For many years during the Afghanistan war, we could not establish whether Taliban negotiators in Qatar actually represented the Taliban and could, in fact, command a cessation of hostilities by the parties who called themselves by that name. Put another way, is the other side an actual group with established command and control structures or just an ideology? Even if we had wanted to negotiate with Al Qaeda, there was no point, as it explicitly defined itself as an agent that most often enabled other groups to act, rather than one that controlled forces. And while Al Qaeda itself is now defunct, its ideological compatriots continue to cause violence in many places.
More often, the other side does have some degree of control. The Iranian government directly controls the terrorist-designated Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and through the IRGC Iran influences other state and non-state terrorist groups like the Assad government in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen. The fact that the conflict in Israel has not spread to full-scale war with Hezbollah and the Houthis is largely because the Iranian government knows that the Israeli government would (correctly) attribute responsibility to Iran and take direct military action against it.
Conversely, there is little hope that negotiations between Russia and Ukraine will be successful, because the Putin regime refuses to abide by its agreements. Putin does control his forces, but has never met a deal he wanted to keep longer than it was convenient. This is not to say that attaining peace is hopeless in Ukraine, but any agreements must be backed up by harsh and painful consequences enforceable by third parties.
When are there sufficient shared interests to negotiate? Superficially, the conflict in Gaza seems to be an entirely intractable situation. The Netanyahu Administration is committed to a single state solution and the death of every member of the Hamas leadership. In turn, the Hamas leadership is committed to the destruction of the Israeli state. Both Netanyahu and the Hamas leadership maintain their power through the continuation of the conflict, regardless of the preferences of a majority of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples to end the fighting.
But beneath the surface neither side can maintain their position. On the Israeli side, the civilian deaths and wide-scale deprivation of human rights inevitably occurring by extermination of Hamas would make Israel an international pariah. On Hamas’s side, there is a real chance that most of them would die and no chance they can militarily destroy Israel. While their long-term goals remain in opposition, Israel and Hamas share a short-term common interest in a ceasefire-for-hostages deal, deferring the final resolution of the conflict to the future. They must communicate directly to achieve their mutual short-term goals.
How should we communicate when we choose to? “We don’t negotiate with terrorists!” is a popular political talking point and often a stated policy, but the reality is that the US Government routinely communicates with groups it labels as terrorists. Sometimes, we conduct negotiations publicly. For instance, Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organization, largely located in Lebanon and supported by Iran. We certainly don’t send an ambassador to the group, but we recently sent a clear message that we will support Israel if Hezbollah attacks. Implicit in that message was that we would not engage in active hostilities against Hezbollah if they did not attack Israel. While this is hardly the same as sitting across a table in Geneva, it does constitute a negotiation. Even when the group is a small, independent cell engaging in activities like hostage-taking, we often negotiate terms of surrender for purely pragmatic and logistical reasons.
A more traditional answer to the problem of how to communicate with an enemy is to use a third-party mediator. We have not had direct diplomatic relations with the Iranian government since they took over the US Embassy in 1979 (in violation of the Vienna Convention), so we communicate through the Swiss. Israel and Hamas communicate through Qatar. The use of a mediator always limits the effectiveness of communications. Just like the game of telephone, where the message gets more garbled the more people pass it on, something is always lost when a country conducts its diplomacy through a third party. Further, the mediator may have their own interests to consider. Refusing to speak directly when it can be done safely doesn’t hurt the other side, nor does it reward terrorism; it simply makes it more difficult to come to an agreement.
When should we talk with terrorists? Contrary to the belief of some, the opportunity to engage in diplomacy with the US or any other country is not a prize. Countries communicate with a variety of state and non-state actors because the other party has something they want, perhaps just in the short-term, even when the parties’ long-term interests are irreconcilable. We should choose not to negotiate when the other party cannot deliver on their agreements or when negotiating cannot be done safely. Without direct communications, lasting peace is hard to find.
Recommendations and Other News.
V2, a Novel of World War II, by Robert Harris. While fictional, the book relates significant portions of the real history of the development of the V2, the direct ancestor of the rockets the US used to reach space. The main characters are neither angels nor devils, but relatable people doing their best to find their way in a morally complex world. I am not a WWII buff, but this one helped me understand better the roots of the space program as well as what it must have been like to live in those times.
Rebecca Schuman’s Olympics Reporting on Slate.com. Rebecca is my neighbor down the street, a former gymnast, a gymnastics coach, and a professor at the University of Oregon. She’s also a terrific writer, and I recommend following her reports on the Olympics.
Contrasting Campaign Quotes. Senator JD Vance said that the country was run “by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too.” Do you know who has a cat and no biological children? Taylor Swift. Do you know the first US President not to have biological children? George Washington. Perhaps we should accept that people make a variety of choices regarding their personal lives and not judge them based on our own choices, Senator Vance? Isn’t personal freedom a core conservative belief?
Vice President Kamala Harris said, “We are not going back.” What better response to MAGA than to point out that the days of a “great” America were not great for most people, including racial minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ folks? Perhaps this desire for a simpler past neglects the fact that it was a simpler time only because large segments of our society were denied their basic human rights. We succeed as a nation when we find commonalities of interest in a variety of perspectives, not when we deny the validity of the perspectives of those we disagree with.
The Veep-stakes, Part 2. The Vice President and presumptive Democratic nominee certainly isn’t calling me for advice on her selection, but I am happy to see two candidates with military experience and significant foreign policy experience on the list - Sen. Mark Kelly and Admiral (retired) Bill McRaven. The first President Bush (1989-93) was the last one with combat experience, and I believe that we haven’t had a president or vice president with any military experience since the second President Bush (2001-09). I’m not among those who believe that combat experience should be a mandatory qualification, but it is heartening to see at least some possible nominees who have an idea of what the military is—and is not—good for. (And yes, I do appreciate that Senator Vance served, although I do not support his candidacy.)
Keep Letters from a Recovering Politician Free
As always, the best thing you can do to support this column is to share it with people who might be interested. I do not have a paid plan because I want folks to be able to access it without worrying about money. If you’d like to leave me a tip to show your appreciation, you can click on the “buy me a coffee” button below.
What foreign policy experience does Mark Kelly have? And, maybe more importantly, what would happen to his Senate seat if he was chosen for vice president?
I have always wondered at our Diplomacy where we always send a couple of College Boys from rich Families and Ivy League Schools that go and talk to their counterparts that spring from a similar circumstance serving the Adversaries' Elites and somehow, we expect these rich guys to solve the Problem and no wonder they usually go in circles that do not serve THEIR PEOPLE!