Reading Solana in Tehran
Conciliatory noises from Tehran over the nuclear issue have left Washington and Brussels baffled, and unconvinced of Iran's intentions. Having grown accustomed to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's uncompromising language, Tehran's new tone has raised more suspicion than hope among cynics in Western capitals.
At a lunch with a dozen U.S. journalists in New York last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki indicated that Iran would likely respond favorably to the latest proposal by the Security Council's permanent members plus Germany (P5+1). The reason seems to be that alongside an incentive package that didn't differ significantly from a 2006 package that Tehran rejected, a formula may have been agreed upon that would enable all parties to come to the negotiating table without losing face.
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana presented the formula orally to the Iranians: For a period of six weeks, Iran would halt any advancement in its enrichment activities while the Security Council would refrain from imposing additional sanctions on Iran. During this period, the Europeans and Iran would negotiate an agreement on the modalities of a full suspension, after which the United States would formally join the talks. This way, Tehran can claim that it didn't suspend as a precondition, but rather as a result of talks, and Washington can claim that it did not join talks until Iran had suspended all enrichment activities.
This formula is not new, however. Why -- and whether -- Iran would agree to it now has become the subject of much speculation. In typical fashion, Iran has sent contradictory signals. Iran's foreign minister struck an uncharacteristically conciliatory tone in New York, refusing to repeat Tehran's mantra that enrichment is non-negotiable. Days before, former foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati argued in favor of negotiations in an interview to the conservative daily, Jomhouriye Eslami.
As a senior advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei, Velayati's words carry particular weight. Not only did Velayati reassert Khamenei's dominion over Iranian foreign policy-making, he indirectly rebuked Ahmadinejad for his radical stance and argued that Iran should negotiate since it had won de facto recognition for its right to enrich. Iran would negotiate from a position of strength, unlike other regional powers that had negotiated out of weakness and had been humiliated by the West accordingly. And since the George W. Bush administration didn't want Iran to respond favorably to the P5+1 proposal, Iran should engage in diplomacy and show the international community that it was not the obstacle to peace, in Velayati's view.
On the other hand, government spokesperson Gholamhossein Elham dampened hopes of a breakthrough by publicly rejecting a freeze on Iran's nuclear activities, asserting that negotiations should take place without Iran agreeing to Solana's formula. According to early reports, Iran's formal response to Solana seemed to have been in line with Elham's -- and not Velayati or Mottaki's -- statements.
Reactions in the West have varied from skepticism to outright suspicion. Tehran is either putting on a nicer face to win time or it has recognized the dangers of an Israeli attack and is showing greater flexibility as a direct result of the Jewish state's muscle flexing. Tehran only responds to force (or threats of force) and the imposition of new sanctions by the EU combined with Israeli bluster has proven that point, the argument reads.
While Iran certainly may be playing for time -- reducing tensions tactically while awaiting the Bush administration's exit from the U.S. political scene could help outmaneuver any effort by Washington to push for additional measures against Iran -- the idea that Iran is responding to the threat of force remains, at best, an incomplete explanation of the latest developments.
If the threat of force has caused the Iranians to bend, then it remains a mystery as to why Tehran didn't succumb two years ago when it was more vulnerable and the credibility of the threat was greater. Today, oil prices are twice as high as they were in 2006, the Bush administration's credibility is at an all time low, the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate has made military strikes more complicated politically, and the public mood in the United States -- even among supporters of John McCain -- is in favor of diplomacy.
If Velayati's words are to be taken at face value, then confidence rather than fear may have been a more important factor in the prospective Iranian decision.
The debate in Tehran over this issue seems to have centered on whether to continue defying the Security Council or to consolidate Iranian gains. Those favoring the latter have likely realized the Bush administration itself has helped make Iranian defiance successful. Critics argue that the Bush team's lack of credibility and incompetence has made it more difficult to assemble a strong international coalition against Iran. Washington's soft power with the EU under Bush has been negligible, forcing the president to strong-arm his European allies to go along with more stringent economic measures against Iran.
But with President Bush out of the picture by January 2009, the utility and risk of the Ahmadinejad line can change dramatically. Whether it is Barack Obama or John McCain, the next commander-in-chief will begin his presidency with significantly higher cachet with the Europeans. The hunger for strengthening trans-Atlantic ties and putting the past eight years of bickering behind them is palpable in Europe. One European diplomat indicated to IPS that Europe would even willingly go along with all the measures Bush has called for -- as long as they are consulted by the next president.
In addition, Washington could enjoy much greater pull with non-aligned countries, including Asian nations whose unwillingness to go along with sanctions have provided Tehran with an economic escape route.
Consequently, greater interest in the freeze-for-freeze formula may have less to do with recent Israeli bluster and more to do with the greater political pull enjoyed by the next U.S. administration.
Furthermore, proponents of the Solana proposal in Tehran believe that a U.S.-Iran rapprochement can be achieved under the next U.S. administration if diplomacy is pursued. To facilitate the next U.S. president's decision to negotiate, however, Tehran must help improve the political atmosphere and provide the next U.S. commander-in-chief with a better starting point for diplomacy.
Initiating discussions at this stage could tie both an Obama and a McCain presidency to the diplomatic track. Whoever wins the elections will inherit a less problematic dispute and enjoy greater political maneuverability as a result. This is particularly true for Obama, since the Illinois senator's willingness to pursue diplomacy may not match his political ability to do so if the nuclear deadlock persists.
Mottaki may have alluded to just that in his interview with CNN yesterday. "We hear new voices in America... and we think that the rational thinkers in America can, based on these new approaches, seek reality as it is. We are ready to help them in this endeavor," Mottaki told CNN.
Whether proponents of dialogue in Tehran and Washington can initiate a process of mutual reinforcement remains to be seen. Even if Tehran agrees to the freeze-for-freeze formula, the Iranians will likely only agree to a full suspension if it isn't open-ended, isn't tied to the continuation of talks but progress in talks, and if the aim of the diplomacy is to limit but not eliminate Iran's enrichment capability.
Neither Britain nor France has shown any flexibility on these central points so far. But fearing that a prospective Obama administration will do away with "self-defeating preconditions" and soften Washington's stance on enrichment, the EU might feel compelled to talk to Tehran with the next U.S. administration in mind and not the current. If so, Tehran's softer tone may drive a wedge between the U.S. and its allies -- an objective all Iranian factions agree upon.
*Trita Parsi is the author of "Treacherous Alliance -- The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the U.S.", a Silver Medal Recipient of the Council on Foreign Relations' Arthur Ross Book Award, the most significant award for a book on foreign affairs.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
OK. Here's Al Jazeera today:
"Iran says it is ready to negotiate with world powers over its nuclear programme but will not suspend its controversial uranium enrichment work.
"Iran will not go back on its right on the nuclear issue," Gholamhossein Elham, a government spokesman, said on Saturday."
How much clearer can it get.
Lets quickly proceed in good faith negotiating effort. If it works out, great.
If not Security Counsil will have to push through stringent sanctions. Obviously, the Ayatollahs think that couple of nuclear bombs and economic ruin will provide better chances of survival for their theocracy than no nuclear weapons and cooperation with the world. They are wrong.
But on a positive side this obstinacy will shorten the life of this fanatical regime.
Iranians will get freedom and the world will gain freedom from Shiite Jihadist sponsors
Iranians will likely only agree to a full suspension if.... the aim of the diplomacy is to limit but not eliminate Iran's enrichment capability.
This is obviously a deal breaker. Most of Security Council members are convinced ( rightly or wrongly) that Iranian ayatollahs are developing nuclear weapon capability.
It is precisely this ability to manufacture weapon-grade plutonium that the world is trying to prevent Iran from having. What else is there to talk about?
Reasonable approach would be to provide Iran with guarantees of security in exchange for permanent and verifiable cessation of production and development of weapon grade nuclear material.
The world wants nothing else from Iran. Question is how does one deal effectively with leaders of a country who are sheltered from the rest of the world and refuse to meet anyone who is not a Muslim. Not easy, but possible.
I don't get it. Iran has no nuclear weapons program. They say it, the UN says it and our OWN intelligence services have confirmed it. So what the hell are we negotiating? They have the right to peaceful nuclear power just like every other nation. If we were really concerned about nuclear non-proliferation we would be trying to work toward a nuclear free mid-east and a nuclear free world. Instead we continue to develop new kinds of nukes in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and we reward the true "rouge" states like India, Pakistan, and Israel that have violated or not signed the treaty while Iran has bent over backwards to develop their peaceful nuclear power according to the treaty.
The real case that the UN should be investigating is the covert terrorist war that the US is ALREADY waging on Iran in violation of international law as reported by Sy Hersh: http://www
You will the answer in our foreign policy that is highjacked. Hopefully this will lead citizens to make more comprehensive decision on future public elections. As long as people keep electing politicians who would put Israel’s interest before American interest, our problems will get worst. For example when it comes to Iran, Israel’s interest and American interest do not coincide. Since Iran has been isolated from American Businesses, the big gainers have been mainly China, India and Russia. At the time American businesses were prohibited to do business in Iran, Chinese and Russian businesses have been signing multi-billion Dollars contracts. If US-Iran relations is ever improved, Iran would make a strong and effective US ally in the Middle East and US may not have to rely on Israel so much. Consequntly there would be no longer any reason for billions of Dollars of annually financial and military US aides to Israel. For that exact reason, every time there is a chance that there could be some improvement in the US-Iran relation, the process is sabotaged directly by Israel or indirectly via Israel’s special interest groups such as AIPAC.
"Iran has no nuclear weapons program. "
You know that because you heard Iranian leaders say it?!
Hmm.... isn't it the same people who said: " we don't have gays in Iran" and "there was no Holocaust?"
Read Arab and ME news and see what is really being said. Although the Bush administration made matters worse, when Iran says "We hear new voices in America... and we think that the rational thinkers in America can, based on these new approaches, seek reality as it is", that is a crock. The Iranian people may have one view but their leaders want to be the power bokers in the ME. They are financially strapped and see the rest of the oil producing countries getting rich. Money buys power. They see an end to sanctions and the US pulling back as a victory. We should negoitiate with Iran but not until they signal a real change in their policy.
i think you are correct that iran can negotiate from strength having pushed the west to the brink of war. despite the salivating dogs of war in israel and the usa iran could always count on cooler heads in europe to intervene.
however, all this agreement does(if it is accepted) is put iran on the high ground when the inevitable assault from israel occurs. a brilliant move.
The clear way out of this is a Mideast nuclear disarmament conference. Israel's 150 nuclear weapons are clearly the reason others in the region want to acquire them.
Such a conference would require some compromises. Iran would have to sit down at the table with the Israelis to negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons from the area.
Negotiating away its nukes would not represent a danger for Israel. They are useless against the close-range threats of Hamas and Hizbollah. They were meant to stop surrounding nations from attacking, and the US has long provided Israel with more than enough conventional force to stop and combination of attacks by its neighbors.
The alternative is a balance of insanity, mutually assured destruction. No rational Iranian or Syrian leader would want to be defenseless against Israeli nuclear attack and/or attack by the US. So these nations will continue efforts to acquire them, whatever they say publicly. The Saudis and Egyptians have also voiced interest in "nuclear programs" recently.
It's rational as long as Israel has them, and made more rational by the large American forces deployed in the area, commanded by a president who believes in preemptive war.
We can step back from an insane nuclear standoff in this unstable region.
It's stated here that Iran's current offer is similar to the one they rejected in 2006. My understanding of those discussions between Iran and an E.U. delagation was that Iran was prepared to consider not enriching its own uranium, but in return the international community would accept that Iran had the right to enrich under international law.
That proposal appeared acceptable to the E.U. or at least a basis for further discussion.
It was the U.S. that then turned round and said NO (this is one of the reasons why Iran wants direct talks with the U.S. Tentative agreements made with others are a waste of time for Iran because those agreements are subject to unilateral veto by the U.S.)
As far as I am aware the current proposal still has Iran asserting its right to enrich if it so wishes.
If we with 6000+ atomic warheads or Israel with 150+ atomic warheads still being afraid of a small country that ha been under sever international sanction for almost 30 years, why do we have such a huge collection of military weopans in the first place? Is that because we have too much extra funds and no other purpose to spend it for? Or may be we have been lied into believing that all that tax money was spent to protect us was waseted!
Furthermore, it is ironic that the same economical sanction that we imposed on Iran during the last 30 years has prevented Iran from expanding their oil industries and consequently their export capacity is hurting us in our own wallets! There is nothing wrong with enrichment. Especially if a country is a signatory to NPT. Unlike Israel, Iran is certainly a NPT member. Once Iran start using nuclear energy to produce electricity, the unused oil and natural gas would be available in the World Energy Market and consequently will affect the price of oil and eventually our pocket book.
Th fact that atomic warheads cannot be used to protect anybody is news to you? Of cause the money were and still are wasted on military build up.
Well crap! About all we can do is keep our fingers cross and hope this goes the right way which ever way that is. If the damn oil companies and the CIA would have left Iran alone in the 50s we wouldn't be in this mess today. Do we ever learn?
Fascinating read. Thanks!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
