WarSclerotic

Take a Republican candidate with little foreign policy experience and a current president with limited foreign policy achievements, add the sensational New York Times report about direct U.S.-Iran talks on the nuclear issue (which was denied by both sides), sprinkle in the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that showed the two candidates to be tied, and you will understand why the third and final debate, in Florida on Monday night, will be critical in the fascinating race for the White House.

Even if economic issues will determine the election, suddenly, according to The New York Times, Iran has something to say (just like in the 1980 election). America’s superpower status may have declined under Obama, but the 2012 U.S. presidential election is still the hottest story around the globe right now.

The battle for the swing states gave way in recent days to talk about foreign policy issues, which did not garner too much focus in the first two debates. The exchange between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on Libya in the second debate, and the unilateral intervention of moderator Candy Crowley in favor of Obama, was a hint of what to expect in Monday night’s debate.

If the terrorist attack in Libya, which was misconstrued by the Obama administration for eight days afterwards, was thought to be the main source of wrangling between the candidates in the final debate, The New York Times on Sunday added more pepper to the mix. Iran, the reputable newspaper revealed, is ready, owing to secret contacts, to hold direct negotiations with the “Great Satan.” NBC added more spice, reporting that Israel, as well as other world powers involved in multilateral talks with Iran on the nuclear issue, were aware of the contacts between the U.S. and Iran. Were these reports surprising? The main surprise was Iran’s willingness to hold direct talks. Obama has aspired for direct dialogue with Iran since his first day in office.

If The New York Times report was even partially true, Iran is ready to give substantial assistance to Obama in the election. Imagine a pre-election message announcement by the Obama administration that Iran has agreed to temporarily freeze uranium enrichment or that Iran has promised to enrich uranium to lower levels in exchange for the U.S. partially lifting economic sanctions. Obama could present this to voters as his first major foreign policy achievement. The American public does not want Iran to get nuclear weapons but Americans are also not interested in a war. Such an agreement with Iran would be a large gamble by Obama, as the partial freezing of sanctions would award Iran for playing for time since multilateral talks began in Geneva in 2009 — talks that have only allowed Iran to get closer to its main goal of having nuclear weapons.

Obama and Romney will face off on Monday night and each candidate has a different approach to the Iranian nuclear issue. From the start, the Obama administration has been interested in talks with Iran and is ready to accept an Iranian civil nuclear program, including low-level uranium enrichment. On the other hand, Romney, similar to the Israeli government, is not prepared to accept any Iranian nuclear program, civil or military, and rejects outright any uranium enrichment by Iran.

Perhaps, the Iranians are only showing fairness. In the 1980 election, the Iranian hostage crisis was a factor in Democrat Jimmy Carter’s loss to Republican Ronald Reagan. Perhaps the Iranians now want to balance that out and help Obama beat his Republican challenger.