Via Andrew, this communique from distinguished Iranian-Americans about what the U.S. posture toward Iran ought to be in the ongoing nuclear negotiations is rather stirring. Most important, to my mind, is this appeal for the U.S. to offer to change the course of recent U.S.-Iranian history by linking human rights with disarmament:

While we oppose any military threat against Iran, we remind American policy makers that turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, which began in 1953 with the coup against Mohammed Mosaddeq, has created suspicion within Iran about American intentions. In our opinion, neglecting the recent atrocities in future negotiations with Iran would confirm this suspicion in the eyes of the Iranian people and would have a negative effect on long-term relations between the two countries. 

This is as compelling as it will be difficult. Shoehorning in human rights issues into an already difficult diplomatic setting runs the risk of fracturing the P5+1 unity that the Obama administration has worked assiduously to cultivate. But Obama adviser Samantha Power, for one, knows very well the emotional resonance that a gesture of recognition can bring to a beleaguered people. Nothing in the communique suggests that the U.S. has to bust up the talks over the nuclear issue. There are any number of creative ways to raise the issue — perhaps when some inevitable bump in the road recurs.

This is as good a time as any to excerpt from one of my favorite essays of the last ten years, "Force Full" by Samantha Power, from the March 3, 2003 issue of The New Republic; it unfortunately isn’t turns out to be online.

U.S. foreign policy should inject first-order concern for human rights into every policy decision. American decision-makers must understand how damaging a foreign policy that privileges order and profit over justice really is in the long term. American decision-makers in every branch of government, in every department (the Pentagon frequently undermines State Department stands on human rights), and in every bureau should ask: What are the likely human consequences of this arms deal? Of this aid package? Of this oil contract? Of this Security Council vote? Of this treaty rejection or unsigning? Of this photo op with this abusive foreign leader? Every decision would require a "full cost accounting"–in which the harm to and welfare of foreign citizens would constitute a key variable in the cost-benefit calculus. Even in the event that the real world, with its terrorists and hostile proliferators, intrudes, the radical shift of America’s presumption would earn the United States far more trust in times of emergency. Prioritizing human rights doesn’t tell a policymaker what to do. Often it can point in two very different directions, and experimentation will be required. Sometimes, human rights may be promoted more smoothly if we remain uninvolved in a democracy struggle, such as in Iran today, where U.S. interference would be unwelcomed by democracy activists. Preparedness to use American power to advance human rights will be counterproductive unless it comes coupled with a sensitivity to local dynamics and aspirations.