Why Washington Should Welcome Iran's Broadening of the Agenda

Amid continued political confusion in Iran following election fraud and widespread human rights abuses, the Iranian government responded to the P5 plus 1 nuclear negotiations package by offering (made available by ProPublica) its own rather imprecise and abstract proposal to resolve -- not the nuclear issue, per se -- but global problems in general.

Unlike the Bush administration, which had a tendency of rejecting negotiation proposals out of hand, the Obama administration has taken some time to review the Iranian proposal and consult its allies.

And while the Iranian response cannot be characterized as a resounding yes, neither is it a categorical rejection of negotiations. Between the theology lessons, endless references to justice, and efforts to broaden the negotiations to encompass virtually every global problem known to man, an opening can be found not only to address the nuclear problem, but also the dire human rights situation and the conspicuous absence of justice in Iran.

The Iranian proposal is best understood not from the prism of the West's focus on the nuclear program, but from the vantage point of Iran's long standing objective to be recognized as a regional power with a permanent seat at the table of regional decision making. Iran believes it suffers from severe role deficit -- though it is one of the most powerful countries in the region, its neighbors view it by and large as a disruptive, anti-status quo power and have consequently refrained from giving it access to recognized and institutionalized avenues of influence.

After all, the reigning order in the Middle East is one defined and upheld by the United States, which for the past thirty years has sought Iran's isolation and exclusion, not its inclusion and rehabilitation. Breaking out of this isolation and forcing Washington and the regional capitols to grant Iran the role it craves have been overarching strategic goals of Iranian foreign policy for several decades now.

Iran believes that the nuclear stand-off provides it with an opportunity to achieve this objective. By broadening the agenda for negotiations, Iran takes the opportunity to discuss with the great powers matters where the views of the Iranian government hardly have been taken into account in the past. The broader aim is to institutionalize the great power's recognition of Iran's role and seat at the table.

Perhaps more importantly, the Iranians refuse to permit the P5 plus 1 to single-handedly set the parameters of the talks. By presenting its own proposal, Iran is introducing its own parameters. The Iranians are in essence negotiating about the shape of the table before negotiating matters of substance. This is hardly surprising. During the EU-Iranian negotiations on the nuclear issue, Tehran was immensely frustrated by Europe's dismissal of several Iranian proposals and its insistence on solely discussing its own set of ideas and demands. By now, Iran seems determined not to let that happen again.

In that vein, Iran's uncompromising stance and its cursory references to nuclear matters are most likely an opening bid, and not a red line. Similarly, the Obama administration's call for the halt of Iran's enrichment program as the objective of the talks is no different. Few inside and outside the White House see a complete reversal of Iran's enrichment program as feasible. That doesn't mean, however, that this demand won't be an effective opening salvo in any negotiation with Tehran.

Rather than viewing the Iranian response as an indication that diplomacy holds no promise for success due to its evasiveness, Washington should seek to utilize Iran's move to its own advantage.

The Iranian proposal doesn't directly touch the enrichment question, but it does address non-proliferation. The proposal to mobilize "global resolve and putting into action real and fundamental programmes toward complete disarmament and preventing development and proliferation of nuclear, chemical and microbial weapons" may offer an opening to push strongly for transparency and acceptance of intrusive inspections and verification mechanisms. According to many nuclear experts, for the purpose of preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb, these instruments are more effective than a suspension of enrichment.

The generalized tone of the offer to address proliferation issues is consistent with Iran's refusal to accept any unique solution to address its nuclear program -- any solution acceptable to the Iranians must be generalized to also apply to Brazil and other countries with existing or potential enrichment programs. Iran refuses to be a special case -- whatever should apply to it should apply to all states in the NPT, they insist.

Western diplomats have expressed great frustration over Iran's attempt to expand the agenda. But even here a silver lining can be found since a broader agenda is a two-edged sword for Iran.

Indeed, if the Ahmadinejad government wants broaden the agenda to talk about Security Council reform and the "roots of the global economic and financial crisis," the US and the EU3 should welcome that and broaden the agenda further to include the question of human rights and free elections in Iran.

This suggestion should not be made with the intention of ridiculing the Iranian demands, but rather to point out that if Iran wants a seat at the table and be treated as a major power, it cannot ignore the responsibilities that come with that position.

Iran is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as several other human rights conventions. Yet, in its prisons, the Iranian government tortures and kills its own citizens for having questioned Iran's June presidential elections.

Iran wants to discuss global justice. Yet, on the streets of Tehran, the Iranian government encourages knife wielding militias to terrorize the Iranian people.

Iran's proposal to the P5 plus 1 requests that people's right to free elections to be respected, yet its own record shows anything but respect for free elections.

Washington should not reject a conversation with Iran about Tehran's blatant hypocrisy, it should welcome it. After all, if the Obama administration's objective is to rehabilitate Iran into the global order as a responsible and constructive actor, then Iran's abysmal human rights record is no less pressing or important than its enrichment program.

There is a favorable basis for this conversation with Tehran precisely since Washington wouldn't need to uphold Iran to a Western standard or one set by "imperialist powers." Rather, it would only need to uphold Iran to the very same standard Iran itself professes to respect.

So if Tehran wants to broaden the agenda, then indeed, let it be broadened.

 

Follow Trita Parsi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tparsi

Comments

[Bahramerad]

Great post Trita ! Now we know who the treators are. well done . I hope that you get your 3 silver coins.

[Mahasti]

Bahramerad - ditto my reply to Kaveh2009 below.
What's the difference between your accusations against Trita Parsi and the IRI's charges against the opposition in Iran?
We Iranians will never be able to enjoy democracy so long as we keep thinking black & white.

[Khirad]

"Indeed, if the Ahmadinejad government wants broaden the agenda to talk about Security Council reform and the "'roots of the global economic and financial crisis,'" the US and the EU3 should welcome that and broaden the agenda further to include the question of human rights and free elections in Iran."

Exactly, I say we "decadent, arrogant powers" humor them. We can do a tit-for-tat on morality, Gitmo v. Evin, etc. I say we bring someone versed in the culture and religion as well, should they want to get into a theological debate on their brand of ideological "Islam".

Will we lose face, buy them more time, or turn our backs on those merely asking for a right to be heard without fear of security forces? Not if we make all those things clear. It will work to the regime's advantage internally the more we ignore them, actually. Though, that's not to say the Iranian populous is that credulous to buy their stale rhetoric anymore as an excuse for those shortcomings that are all their own creation and fault.

[Kaveh2009]

Negotiating with this regime is fruitless. This regime is driven by an ideology. Many repulican and democrat part presidents have tried and failed. Mullahs just want to buy time to delevlop nuclear bomb. Trita and likes of him are hired to buy mullahs that time! I never believe a word he says, trust me there are over a 1000 000 iranians in the US, I do not think NIAC memebership exceeds 500 including his paid employees and consultants.

[Mahasti]

Kaveh2009 Your accusing Trita Parsi of being on the IRI's payroll is a mirror image of the IRI accusing the opposition of being at the service of US/UK.
Please stick to the facts and debate the substance of his opinion instead of trying to muzzle the man---if, that is, you support freedom of expression (which is not the same thing as the freedom to slander people).

[joabear]

Demonstration planned in New York during Ahmadinejad's UN visit on September 23
Press Release, Solidarity Committee for Advancement of Democracy in Iran


Press Release, Solidarity Committee for Advancement of Democracy in Iran



In order to:

Defend human rights and the dignity of the people of Iran;

Relay their cry for justice to the rest of the world; and

Demand freedom of all political prisoners in Iran,

We invite you:



To participate in a demonstration by Iranians from all over the world in front of the United Nations building on September 23rd.

Let the whole world know that we do not recognize the illegitimate president hand-picked by the "Supreme Leader."

Let us protest the brutal suppressions, tortures, and killings of freedom loving people who were peacefully demonstrating against the regime. Those responsible for these human rights violations and crimes are pacing the UN hallways, rather then being tried by international courts and tribunals.

Let us join and support the heroic struggle of the freedom-loving people of Iran, who want to replace the dictatorship of Velayat e Fagheeh (Supreme Leader) with a genuine democratic republic based on the will of the people.

http://www.payvand.com/news/09/sep/1001.html

Watch how the regime in Iran tortures the protesters:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=121111799589&id=108514667270&ref=mf

Join us in the Big Demonstration Against Ahmadinejad and his supporting mullah, Khameneyi, when he speaks at UN.
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=39523792780&topic=10144

[joabear]

Ahmadinejad & Family Take on ‘New’ Foreign Policy

http://tehranbureau.com/ahmadinejad-family-new-foreign-policy/

[JerryLevy]

This author is either oblivious to the purpose behind Iran's so called proposal or is just unable to understand how diplomacy is used by global dictatorships to delay, distract, and obfuscate the real issues. The Soviets used to attempt this all the time and only fooled the European and American leftists. Iran does not want to discuss their nuclear program and does not want to face sanctions while they are working as fast as possible on the weapons systems. So they offer up a strawman to divide the West and delay Nuclear discussions and this author buys it. Naive at best.

[Mandana]

Ahmadinejad and his gang are trying to buy more time to develop their nuclear weapon program. This is the only reason for his proposal of discussing global issues to help manage the world. IRI has made a mess out of managing one country, now they want to make a mess out of the world! Trita Parsi is not naïve; as the president of NIAC, he has in depth knowledge about Iran’s political situation. His actions of convincing the West that Iran’s nuclear program is not a threat to the word, has done nothing but to buy more time for Iran to advance its nuclear program.

If the West tries to include human rights violations by IRI in the discussions, Iran would consider it interference in their internal affairs like they have said so many times in the past. The best way for US and West to deal with this criminal government and its nuclear weapon program is to side with people of Iran for their quest of establishing a secular and democratic form of government.

[joabear]

Spot on. I couldn't agree more. I think the US and his allies have already reached that conclusion; hence nuking Dubai.

[joabear]

"Confronting the system, confronting the tenets of the system, standing up to and drawing a sword against the system will get a harsh response."

To those who are familiar with the Supreme Leader's words, there is only one interpretation of the above statements. If you dare to use next Friday's annual pro-Palestinian protests in Tehran to oppose the coup, he will let loose his army of thugs and hoodlums once again to commit more murders and more rapes and more suffering on the people of Iran.

The Iranian government backed AlQods march is always on the last Friday of Ramadan in Iran . Watch for more killing of Iranians in the streets of Iran.

This years slogan for Quods day in Iran is
نه غزه نه لبنان جانم فدای ايران

Translation:No Gaza, No Lebanon

My life only sacrificed for Iran.
http://iranian.com/main/blog/noosh-afarin-34

[Javani]

Interesting opinion.

To be more certain, this is not the first time the "global issues/no nuclear issues" has been forwarded. The current offer reads no difference that the offer made to Obama before the election.

Ahmadinejad's "global issues" offer came in response not due to the election, but due to Obama's incessant requests for negotiations and taking regime change off the table. When regime change was taken off the table Ahmadinejad said Iran won, the nuclear issue was off the table. It is no secret, he said it many times. And many times in context with extreme Iranian nationalist announcements. Khamenei once made a joke at services about the US's repeated demands for talks. They said they responded, "global issues."

You should take the "global issues" matter in the mind of a Khomeinist's limited mind set. They see themselves as leaders of the whole Muslim world, they channel Khomeini's supremecist ideas. When they say "global issues" you should consider that if you respond positively, this encourages their megalomania. "Global issues" will give them a platform for victory, in their minds.

[joabear]

"journalists and bloggers"

All in all, this is proving a bad year for journalists. More are in jail than at any time since the Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York-based advocacy group, began keeping records. Of the 174 held, some may go free soon; but as a crackdown in Iran demonstrates, there is also a risk that more will join them.

Indeed, Iran is chiefly responsible for these ghastly data. At least 41 journalists have been arrested there since the election in June. Some are now free, but the whereabouts of others is unknown.

Iran now holds at least 27 journalists, almost as many as China (30), and more than Cuba (25). Once inside (in Iran especially) things can get worse. Omidreza Mirsayafi, a blogger who was given 30 months for mocking Iran’s leaders, died in jail in March. Press freedom is also under attack in Iraq.

The internet, long seen as a way of dodging dictators, can be dangerous. At least 25 bloggers have been arrested this year. The repression of online journalism is intensifying in China, Vietnam, Burma and Iran, says Clothilde Le Coz of Reporters Without Borders, a group that defends journalists"
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14380281

[Mahasti]

Tria Parsi's proposal to include nuclear negotiations along with human rights on the agenda is smart and on target. The problem is that Iran could, and almost certainly will, use the very same process to justify going nuclear; that's because global nuclear disarmament is unlikely to happen--not soon enough, anyway.

[Kaveh2009]

No not really, negotiating with a regime which does not hesitate to kill, torture and rape its citizens atany cost or for any reason is unjustified. Trita is a lobbyist paid bythe mullahs to adovcate dialogue with Iran. NIAC, AIC and PAAIA are funded by oil rich tycoons and as long as this regimes is propped up, they get lucrative oil contacts at the expense of justice and freedom. Where has our orals and ethics gone?

[joabear]

"what can we do for you"?

"In the deepest sense, something else is at stake – the salvation of us all, of myself and my interlocutor equally. Or is it not something that concerns us all equally? Are not my dim prospects or, conversely, my hopes his dim prospects and hopes as well? Was not my arrest an attack on him and the deceptions to which he is subjected an attack on me as well? Is not the destruction of humans in Prague a destruction of all humans? Is not indifference to what is happening here or even illusions about it a preparation for the kind of misery elsewhere? Is not their misery the presupposition of ours? The point is not that some Czech dissident, as a person in distress, needs help. I could best help myself out of distress simply by ceasing to be a 'dissident'. The point is what that dissident's flawed efforts and his fate tell us and mean, what they attest about the condition, the destiny, the opportunities and the problems of the world, the respects in which they are or could be food for thought for others as well, for the way they see their, and so our, shared destiny, in what ways they are a warning, a challenge, a danger or a lesson for those who visit us."

- Václav Havel, "Politics and Conscience" (1984)

[joabear]

"What can we do for you"?

"... precisely these and similar questions reveal to me ever anew how deeply many Western intellectuals do not understand – and in some respects, cannot understand – just what is taking place here, what it is that we, the so-called 'dissidents', are striving for and, most of all, what is the overall meaning of it. Take, for instance, the question, 'What can we do for you?' A great deal, to be sure.

The more support, interest, and solidarity of free-thinking people in the world we enjoy, the less the danger of being arrested, and the greater the hope that ours will not be a voice crying in the wilderness. And yet, somewhere deep within the question there is a built-in misunderstanding.

After all, in the last instance the point is not to help us, a handful of 'dissidents', to keep out of jail a bit more of the time. It is not even a question of helping these nations, Czechs and Slovaks, to live a bit better, a bit more freely. They need first and foremost to help themselves. They have waited for the help of others far too often, depended on it far too much, and far too many times came to grief: either the promised help was withdrawn at the last moment or it turned into the very opposite of their expectations...
continued!

- Václav Havel, "Politics and Conscience" (1984)

[joabear]

""Iran wants to discuss global justice. Yet, on the streets of Tehran, the Iranian government encourages knife wielding militias to terrorize the Iranian people.""--Triata Parsi

I"ran is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as several other human rights conventions. Yet, in its prisons, the Iranian government tortures and kills its own citizens for having questioned Iran's June presidential elections.""--Triat Parsi

What kind of a "global role" and "responsibility" we can expect from such a brutal gov't who has no mercy on it's own citizens: where sharpshooters on rooftopes pick off innocent men and women randomly, innocent rape victims disappear, kidnampped and killed???

[joabear]

.."The IRGC's early mandate was to defend the Islamic Revolution from within and without. But, over the years, it expanded its security role to control most businesses. The IRGC controls all strategic industries - including nuclear, weapons, transportation, shipping, energy, commercial services, banks, clinics, and even the black market industry. What the IRGC does not control on behalf of the State is owned directly by the state.

The forthcoming "privatization" of TCI demonstrates that Ahmadinejad, himself a former IRGC member, is now working to strengthen the IRGC's power over all state assets, putting his former radical comrades in charge.

As in previous "privatizations," domestically, the shares are sold to different companies and individuals whose names mean nothing to non-Iranians. Nevertheless, those familiar with Iran can attest that these are minimally veiled fronts for the IRGC.

...
Instead, it is time for the U.S. to follow the money trail and to accurately identify all Iranian linked businesses and organizations as assets of the Iranian state. The U.S., preferably with some allies, should then stop the money flow that allows Iran to develop its nuclear weapons, arm itself and its many subversive groups and terrorist organizations the world over.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-rachel-ehrenfeld/ahmadinejad----the-econom_b_276364.html

[joabear]

Where is Iran headed?

http://tehranbureau.com/iran-headed/