Multitasking Tehran

I don't quite follow Stephen Hayes' point here. He's clearly bothered by President Obama's Nowruz message to the Iranians, yet he makes no mention of Obama's hard power efforts to compliment this soft power gesture. Hayes asks "haven't Iran's leaders made that choice [between destroying or building relations]? They are supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and yes, al Qaeda."

This argument strikes me as somewhat bizarre. Why does Hayes assume that Iran - after all of the empires and autocrats the United States has conquered and quelled - will be among the few unreasonable regimes that never bend to such overtures? Furthermore, why is it impossible for Obama to both pressure and engage the Iranians?

Countless American presidents have gone about things in this manner. The United States maintained open channels with the Soviet Union, even during the chilliest of Cold War feelings. George Bush, Sr. sternly demanded that Saddam Hussein withdraw from Iraq, yet, without much trouble, worked through the international community to pressure and leverage Hussein away from the option of conflict with the United States.

Indeed, even George W. Bush managed to label Iran as 'evil,' sanction the regime, and then simultaneously engage in Iraqi security talks with them. So why does Hayes believe that this particular president is incapable of handling such a multitask?

And Obama clearly intends to pursue every option, as his renewal of Iranian sanctions and negotiations with Moscow seem to indicate.

So why is Hayes so annoyed?

UPDATE:

On a related note, I think Michael Crowley raises the right flags on excessively placating the Iranians:

Could this time be different? Maybe. Albright did not use words like "apologize" or "sorry" (although Kenneth Pollack, who was then working on Iran issues at the National Security Council, describes the statement as an "apology" in his book The Persian Puzzle). Nor did she mention Iran Air flight 655. Maybe a new statement from Obama, one that is more contrite and discusses the shoot-down, would move Khamenei and friends. Or maybe this is just one more Iranian stalling tactic.

In that very same book, Pollack offers up a possible solution: we both apologize. The U.S. apologizes for the coup, and Tehran apologizes for the hostage crisis.

I'm a fan of this idea, as I think it forces both sides to eat a little crow, and more importantly, it helps to calm some of the ideological differences we've had over the years. These differences, we must remember, have been formed by events. Remove those from the table and you're off to a good start.

UPDATE II

Kirchick adds his own greeting to the Iranians.