May
22
2009
|
Negotiating with Persians |
|
|
|
Written by JD Johannes
|
|
Friday, 22 May 2009 |
"Now you can take back our answer, which is that we consider that, if the case of becoming friends with the King, we shall be more valuable friends if we retain our arms than if we surrender them; and if it is a case of fighting, we shall fight better if we retain our arms."
That was response of the Greek General Clearchus to the amabassadors of the Persian King Ataraxerxes. And it will be similar to the response the Iranians give to President Obama.
In 401 B.C., a group fo 10,000 Greek mercenaries joined an ill-fated attempt by Cyrus the Younger to seize the throne of the Persian empire from Ataraxerxes. Cyrus was killed in battle and the Greeks were on their own, deep in Persian territory along the Tigris river.
One of the King's ambassador's made the Persian position clear:
"The Kind considers that, since he killed Cyrus, the victory is his. He thinks that you, too, are in his power, since he has got you in the middle of his territories, surrounded by impassable rivers, and can bring against you such masses of men that you could never kill them all."
The Persian King clearly felt he was operating from a position of strength in demanding the Greeks surrender their arms, but he was not understanding the absolute logic of the situation as the Greeks viewed it.
Two Greek officers made their responses.
Proxenus said, "[is] the King asking for our arms by right of conquest or as gifts to show our friendship. If it is by right of conquest, why should he have to ask us for them instead of coming to take them?"
But Theopompus made the logic clear to all:
"The only things of value which we have at present are our arms and our courage. So long as we keep our arms we fancy that we can make good use of our courage; but if we surrender our arms we shall lose our lives as well. So do not imagine that we are going to surrender to you our only valuables."
In the current era of negotiations with the Persians, who are now called Iran, they are employing the logic of the Greeks.
The potential of a nuclear weapon is their most valuable asset.
If the US truly wants to be friends with the Iranians and wishes them no ill will, why do we care if they have nukes? The US gets along fine with other nuclear powers.
And the US is such a dominant power, why don't they just come and take the weapons away?
The Greeks understood that King Ataraxerxes was not in a truly dominant position and were not certain if the King really wanted friendship.
The Greeks kept their arms and their journey out was chronicled by their eventual leader, Xenophon in the book 'The Persian Expedition.'
President Obama is, in some ways, in the position of Ataraxerxes and the Iranians know it.
In middle eastern culture, the person seeking to negotiate is seen as being in a position of weakness.
We in the west for some reason have adopted negotiation as the default political position and are ignoring the absolute logic of the situation.
The most valuable thing the Iranian regime possess is the threat of nuclear weapons. If they give it up and the US reneges on any promises, the Iranians have nothing.
Therefore the Iranians will respond like Clearchus.
"Now you can take back our answer, which is that we consider that, if the case of becoming friends with the King, we shall be more valuable friends if we retain our arms than if we surrender them; and if it is a case of fighting, we shall fight better if we retain our arms."
|
|
