WRITE for ATol ADVERTISE MEDIA KIT GET ATol BY EMAIL ABOUT ATol CONTACT US
Asia Time Online - Daily News
             
Asia Times Chinese
AT Chinese



    Middle East
     May 27, 2006
Talking to Tehran, not at it
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - The administration of US President George W Bush is under increasing pressure - both in the US and abroad - to engage Iran in direct talks, despite the continued opposition of pro-Israel neo-conservatives and Vice President Dick Cheney.

In recent weeks, a growing number of prominent Republicans, as well as Democrats, have been urging Bush to pursue face-to-face negotiations on a range of issues.

At the same time, Washington's European allies, who have acted as the administration's surrogates in talks with Iran on its nuclear program for the past three years, are rapidly losing patience with what they increasingly see as US intransigence.

"The Europeans are jumping up and down telling the US it's time



to engage," said Charles Kupchan, director of European Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington. "If the United States doesn't engage in some sort of negotiation, the likelihood of a major bust-up across the Atlantic is very high," he added.

Some signs that the pressure is being felt in the White House emerged this week when Bush's new spokesman, Tony Snow, told reporters that Washington might be willing to talk directly with Iran about its nuclear program if Tehran suspended its uranium enrichment activities.

"When that happens ... then there may be some opportunities [for discussions]," he said, suggesting that any such contact would likely take place within a larger multilateral context, presumably involving at least the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany), and possibly Russia and China.

Diplomats from those five powers met with their US counterparts in London this week in an effort to fashion a new package of carrots and sticks that they hope will persuade Iran to halt its enrichment activities as a first step toward an agreement that would ensure that Tehran could not build a nuclear weapon.

The package is likely to include providing Iran with light-water nuclear reactors, trade and other economic incentives, and discussion of a "framework" to address Iran's security concerns.

According to published reports, however, US diplomats opposed inclusion of the last item on the agenda, apparently due to a continuing impasse within the administration between Cheney and his allies, who favor "regime change", and other officials, notably in the State Department, who believe that goal to be both unrealistic and possibly counter-productive.

"Security guarantees are not on the table," one anonymous "senior State Department official" told the media, which also noted that the Europeans had advised Washington that, in the absence of such guarantees by the US, Tehran was unlikely to make concessions on its nuclear program.

The administration, which in 2002 labeled Iran a charter member of the "axis of evil", has pushed for the UN Security Council to approve sanctions against Iran for alleged violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

While the European members of the council have generally backed the effort, Russia and China, concerned about both the impact of such a resolution on their own strategic and commercial interests and the possibility that Washington could use Iran's refusal to comply with its terms to justify an eventual military attack - much as it did in Iraq's case three years ago - have dragged their heels.

Even the Europeans, however, are skittish about the kinds of sweeping sanctions, such as a ban on imports of gasoline or exports or Iranian oil and gas, that Washington wants to see imposed, according to Kupchan. He predicted that trans-Atlantic unity would remain strong through the imposition of "light sanctions", such as bans on arms sales and visas for Iranian leaders, but is likely to "disappear" beyond that, particularly if the US resorted to military force.

"At the end of the day, the US wants regime change, and the EU doesn't," he said, adding that an eventual resort by Washington to military action against Iran had virtually no support in Europe. "I have yet to find a European policymaker who thinks war is preferable to a nuclear Iran."

But it is not only Washington's European allies, Russia and China that are urging Bush to change course by engaging directly with Tehran. Other key regional allies, including Saudi Arabia and Turkey, have made similar appeals.

In the US, Bush, already battered by record-low approval ratings, is also under pressure from some fellow Republicans.

In the past two months, two former political appointees who served as top State Department officials in Bush's first term, Middle East specialist Richard Haass and former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, called for talks on the full range of issues - including Iran's nuclear program, its alleged support for terrorism, and its regional policies that Washington finds objectionable - that have separated the two countries since 1979.

They have been joined by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dick Lugar, and Senator Chuck Hagel, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2008, as well as a number of prominent Democrats, including Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, and secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, and influential lawmakers, such as senators Joseph Biden and Dianne Feinstein, both considered pro-Israel moderates in the party.

Perhaps most impressive, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq, also called earlier this month for direct negotiations with Iran, at least over the nuclear issue, which he argued in a lengthy Washington Post column was too important to US security to be "negotiate[d] through proxies, however closely allied".

These appeals have also been bolstered by signals, including President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's unprecedented letter to Bush - which, according to Kissinger, may have been designed "to get the radical part of the Iranian public used to dialogue with the United States" - that Iran itself favored direct talks.

That interpretation of Iran's intent has since gained credence by the publication in Time magazine of a two-page memorandum by Hassan Rohani, the chief national security representative of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, on a proposed solution to the nuclear issue. Messages have also reportedly been sent to US officials through intermediaries by the chairman of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, regarding Tehran's willingness to engage in comprehensive talks.

Against this tide, neo-conservatives, whose influence in the administration runs chiefly through Cheney's office, have been fighting back, warning that direct talks with Tehran would be a trap from which Washington would find it difficult to extricate itself and declaring that recent ethnic unrest inside Iran showed that its population was ready to rise up against the regime.

"The question before the world now is: can Iran be coerced by any means short of force [to halt its nuclear program]," wrote David Frum of the American Enterprise Institute. "There's only one way to find out - and it is not by talking."

(Inter Press Service)


Iran offered 'to make peace with Israel' (May 26, '06)

Iran: Russia, China drift toward US (May 19, '06)

How Iran will win a sanctions war (May 11, '06)

 
 



All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2006 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