|
|
|
|
Washington talks of talks with
Iran
By Ehsan Ahrari
Iran and the United States, the
two antagonists, aren't talking to each other on
the ever-escalating controversy related to
Iran's nuclear program, but are indulging in
activities that are very much aimed at pushing each other in
that direction. Their behavior keeps the hope
alive that a diplomatic solution of Iran's nuclear
option might still emerge sooner than one
anticipates.
Vice President Dick Cheney recently
reiterated Washington's concern about Iran's
nuclear program by stating that it is "right
at the top of the list" of potential trouble
spots for the US. Condoleezza Rice, during her
confirmation hearing to become secretary of state,
referred to Iran as an "outpost of tyranny".
In pursuing the practice of "cute phrasemaking"
that is so idiosyncratic to the world
of Washington, that may be envisaged as just another
phrase like "rogue states" and "axis of evil";
however, the fact remains that her statement,
along with that of Cheney, is part of the
United States' steadfast resolve that Iran, under no
circumstances, will be allowed to follow the North
Korean example.
In
the environment since September
11, 2001, such a potential happenstance
would seriously damage US credibility regarding
nuclear non-proliferation. That may be one reason even
the whispers of regime change are also kept alive
in Washington.
On its side, Iran also
knows what is at stake. It is fully cognizant of
the United States' seriousness of purpose regarding
nuclear non-proliferation. No one has to persuade Iran
of Washington's military capabilities to
neutralize its nuclear option. Yet rulers of that
country remain quite wary of the intentions of the
Bush administration and its stubborn habit of
not paying any heed to what the
international community thinks about another potential US
action aimed at regime change, or at least
neutralizing Iran's nuclear program. They
certainly don't want to be seen as buckling under
Washington's public demands that they imminently
cease and desist all nuclear-related activities,
without any concessions from the US as a payback,
especially when US officials are cavalierly
threatening the very survival of their government.
Iran wants to engage fully with the US before it
decides to give up its uranium enrichment program.
Any such engagement would be fully aimed at
extracting as ironclad guarantees as Iran could
get from the US and from a number of its European
allies.
In a rare interview, Iran's
national security adviser, Hasan Rouhani, stated
that his country is open to ties with the US. He
added, "Iran would like to have a suitable
atmosphere for both sides to move to a better
place. If the United States is after solving the
[nuclear] problem, there would be a way [to
improve relations], but we don't think they are
looking for a right solution. They usually use
threats, and threats cannot be the basis for
dialogue." The most important part of Rouhani's
statement was when he said that the best way to
guarantee that Iran would not build bombs was if
it could develop "a close and comprehensive
relationship" with the West.
The US has
also initiated a brilliant diplomatic maneuver
that might have caught Iran off-guard. US Under
Secretary of State John Bolton is attempting to
coordinate US policies on Iran with the Gulf
states under the rubric of "peaceful diplomatic
solution". However, before such a maneuver proves
fruitful, the Persian Gulf states must also solidify their
own position on whether they perceive the notion
of a "nuclear" Iran as an acceptable or a perilous
development. Such an attitude on the part of the
Gulf states would have been unthinkable in the
pre-September 11 environment. Then, the Arab-Iran
rivalry was still legendary.
However,
the vagaries of the post-September 11 era have
created an environment where that rivalry has lost much
of its bluster. Of all the Gulf states, only
the United Arab Emirates perceives Iran as a
threat because it continues to occupy three
islands belonging to that state - Greater Tumb,
Lesser Tumb and Abu Musa - and refuses to resolve
the conflict through negotiations. On the other
hand, Saudi Arabia - the largest Arab state of the
region - has had good ties with Iran, especially
at a time when both Riyadh and Tehran find
themselves recipients of Washington's criticism
and scrutiny for different reasons.
Oman
and Qatar have enjoyed good ties with Iran,
despite the fact that Qatar serves as the regional
base for Washington's Central Command. Similarly,
despite enjoying close ties with the US, Kuwait
and Iran have no particular hot-button issues
between them. So, while the Arab states of the
Gulf might want to take a long and hard look at
the strategic implications related to "nuclear"
Iran in the coming years, they are not likely to
play into Washington's hand by putting together a
militant or even an alarmist opposition to it. In
fact, they might consider approaching Iran on this
issue before fine-tuning their consensual (or a
near consensual) stand of their own on the nuclear
issue.
In the meantime, according to a report published
in the London Times, the government of
Prime Minister Tony Blair is reported to
have developed a 200-page dossier titled "Iran's
Nuclear Program". It "rules out military action
and makes the case for a negotiated solution
to curbing the ayatollahs' nuclear ambitions
amid increasingly bellicose noises form
Washington". It also states that a peaceful solution
led by the United Kingdom, France and
Germany (the EU-3) is "in the best interests of
Iran and the international community".
Reacting to a published report that US
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has sent a
memo to the Department of Energy stating that next
year's budget should include funds to resume study
on building an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon
designed to destroy hardened underground targets,
British officials are growing increasingly
concerned that months of patient EU-3 diplomacy
"may explode in a torrent of bunker-busting
attacks by US stealth bombers".
What
emerges from the preceding is the fact that the
mighty lone superpower's options related to Iran's
nuclear program are not cut and dried, if it were
to maintain a friendly global environment for its
legitimate concerns about nuclear
non-proliferation. Bombing Iran's nuclear
facilities would not convince that country to
truly forego building nuclear weapons. It would
only renew its resolve to do so in a distant
future.
Diplomatic engagement between
Washington and Tehran,
on the contrary, holds such a promise. Even
the EU-3 - most importantly, the UK - is
making that point clear to the US. Iran on its part is
also attempting to reach out without totally giving up
its option of enriching uranium. That option remains
Iran's major bargaining chip toward the US,
when both of them sit down and negotiate the subject.
If the administration of President George W
Bush has drawn one lesson related to North Korea's
nuclear issue, it should be that under no
circumstances should it forgo the option of
directly negotiating with Iran.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an
Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent
strategic analyst.
(Copyright 2005
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette Middle East Sex News
|
|
|
