Calm before the storm of US-Iran talks
By Shahir Shahidsaless
As the United States prepares to engage in talks with Iran on October 1, the
unexpected move by Washington to drop its planned missile shield in Eastern
Europe has abruptly changed both parties' game plans, and raised the already
considerable stakes.
The meeting - the first since 1979 when former national security adviser for
president Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, held a secret meeting with Iran's
foreign minister - will ultimately center on sanctions. A failure to rally
support for new sanctions could force US President Barack Obama into a dilemma
- either to accept defeat and a possibly nuclear Iran, or to wage a new war.
Hawks in Washington are already rattling their sabres. "Meeting the Challenge:
Time is running out", an update to a 2008 report
outlining Washington's policy towards Iran released by the Bipartisan Policy
Center (BPC) on September 15, cites two elements needed to resolve the Iranian
nuclear standoff: threat and war.
The report reads, "We believe only the credible threat of a US military strike
will make a peaceful resolution of the crisis possible."
Looking at the effects of "severe economic sanctions", the reports states, "To
ensure greater impact, so that the sanctions do not involve a 'whack-a-mole'
scenario, a naval inspection regime could accompany gasoline sanctions. Recent
unrest heightens the Iranian government's sensitivity to economic pressure."
The key question is, will these sanctions and threats be effective enough to
compel "the Iranian leadership to reconsider its nuclear program", as hoped for
by the BPC, or just serve as a pretext to war?
Iran's new proposal distributed to the "Iran Six" nations (the five permanent
members of the UN Security Council - the Untied States, Britain, China, Russia
and France - plus Germany), was titled "Cooperation for Peace, Justice and
Progress". The plan does not mention the country's nuclear program as an issue
for the negotiations.
But it does mention "its readiness to embark on comprehensive, all-encompassing
and constructive negotiations aiming at acquiring a clear framework for
cooperative relations". In political jargon, the closest term to this
expression is "grand bargain".
According to the Iranian five-page proposal posted on the non-profit,
independent ProPublica website, there is no sign of traditional claims by the
Islamic Republic of Iran on the past ill-will of the West towards the Iranian
regime. The proposal sounds downright conciliatory. Nonetheless, the first
reaction from the US was to turn it down.
PJ Crowley, the assistant to the Secretary of State for Public Affairs, called
it unresponsive, "... to [the US] the greatest concern, which is obviously
Iran's nuclear program”. It took less then 24 hours for this stance to take a
sharp turn.
Crowley soon qualified his statement. "Iran's lack of interest in addressing
its nuclear program is not a reason to refuse to talk," he told the Associated
Press.
A possible reason for this rapid change of heart is that the end of September,
the deadline imposed by Obama on Iran to start negotiations, is just around the
corner. Under the circumstances, Obama's refusal of Iran's proposal would have
left him with only one option, to push for tougher sanctions. This could prove
a daunting task and a huge gamble.
After reviewing Iran's proposal, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made
it clear Moscow would not participate in a new round of tough sanctions against
Iran. Obama's high-profile policy towards Iran was shaken when Wu Jianmin, a
top foreign policy player in China, also jumped on Lavrov's bandwagon, leaving
the US administration in dismay.
Insisting on new, tougher sanctions without having Russia's and/or China's
support, is doomed to fail. For example, blocking the import of gasoline to
Iran shapes the core of the sanctions policy. However, Russia would be able to
supply Iran's demand via roads and railway, even if there were a naval
blockade.
The BPC experts foresee war as the final outcome. "While we encourage
tightening economic pressure on Iran, we are not persuaded the United Nations'
Security Council will make such sanctions internationally binding ... For this
reason, it is important that the White House pursue a multi-step strategy and
prepare overtly for any military option," the BPC report claims.
However, the report was researched and compiled before something unexpected
happened.
On September 17, Obama announced that the US would shelve its controversial US
ballistic missile shield in Eastern Europe. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in
response to Obama's initiative, said, "I very much hope that this very right
and brave decision will be followed by others."
Immediately after the announcement, Andre Nesterenko, Russia's Foreign Ministry
spokesman, denied any backroom deals had been cut between Moscow and
Washington. Still, analysts read the move as a clear concession by Washington
to Moscow in exchange for Russia's support of tough policies on Iran.
A further statement came from Dmitry Rogozin, Russian envoy to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, who stated, "In actual fact, the Americans have
simply put their own mistake right. And we are not duty bound to pay for
someone to put their own mistakes right."
It is hard to conclude whether or not the move will be enough to buy Russia's
full cooperation with the US. The influence of the US in Georgia, a highly
problematic country for Russia, is and will be a matter of tension between
Moscow and Washington.
According to the New York Times on September 9, "Rising tensions between Russia
and Georgia over shipping rights to the breakaway Georgian region have opened a
potential new theater for conflict between the two countries."
Dimitri Simes, Russia expert and president of the Nixon Center in Washington,
believes that there will be no drastic change in Russia's policy towards Iran.
Simes, according to the Los Angeles Times, is convinced that Russia will
continue to oppose sweeping sanctions. However, the article suggests that
Moscow could be "somewhat more accommodating" on Iran.
The US's plan is to introduce the issue of Iran's nuclear program into
negotiations with the support of Britain, France and Germany. "This may not
have been the topic that they [Iranians] wanted to be brought up. But I can
assure that it's a topic that we'll bring up," White House spokesman Robert
Gibbs told reporters.
By using complex tactics during the negotiations, the US hopes it will persuade
Moscow and Beijing to join the "club of four" nations calling for more
stringent sanctions if Iran doesn't abandon its uranium-enrichment program,
which Tehran all along has said it has the right to pursue in line with its
membership to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
. Iranian officials have reiterated that Iran's right to develop civilian
nuclear technology is not negotiable, and that the program will continue. As
recently as September 11, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said,
"We will not negotiate with anyone over our undeniable right to access and use
nuclear technology."
However, he added, "We are ready to negotiate [only] over supervision controls
and guarantees to the world." Later, Foreign Minister Manoochehr Mottaki said,
"Should conditions be ripe, there is a possibility of talks about the nuclear
issue."
The key question is why don't Iranians want to talk about their nuclear
program? After all, they can always walk away from the talks, as they have done
in the past. There are two potential reasons.
First, for the ruling oligarchy, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's reactivation of
nuclear activities has become the symbol of resistance against the West. Today,
over 4,000 nuclear centrifuges spin successfully, as opposed to 164
non-functional centrifuges in place when Ahmadinejad broke the International
Atomic Energy Agency's seals.
Iran's atomic program is now part of the identity of the ruling class. For
them, suspending enrichment work would be a major defeat and open the door to
more Western pressure. For example, human-rights violations could be the next
card to be played against the regime.
In his speech on September 11, Khamenei stated, "We must stand firm for our
rights. If we give up outright, whether nuclear or other rights, this will lead
to decline ... We will walk the path of decline if ... instead of standing
against arrogance, aggressors and international looters, we feel weak before
them and retreat."
Second, Iran is suspicious about the real intentions behind the negotiations.
In her first congressional testimony, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
said she believed that "by following the diplomatic path, [the US could] gain
credibility and influence ... to make the sanctions regime as tight and as
crippling as [the US] would want it to be".
There is an interesting similarity between Clinton's and the hardline Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC's) point of view on the negotiations. An
analysis on September 14, published on the IRGC-affiliated website Javan
Online, read,
... [E]xperts believe that this hasty acceptance [of
Iran's proposal] raises the suspicion that the West's intention is to use these
negotiations as a tool to divert the discussions away from the [Iran's]
proposal ... Pessimism towards the West now has a new dimension. This pessimism
can be defined as the West's hidden agenda to lead the negotiations to a
stalemate to prepare the grounds for tougher actions against Iran. This
pessimism has another face too. They [the Western allies] are under the
impression that due to the [Iran's] domestic difficulties we are in a weak
position and they have the chance to compel conditions, that were not
imaginable before ...
Such rhetoric makes it almost certain
that if the West uses threatening language during the upcoming negotiations,
the engagement will come to an abrupt end.
Shahir Shahidsaless is a Canadian-Iranian political analyst writing
mainly in Farsi. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering, and has
devoted the past 10 years predominantly to researching and writing about the
Middle East and international affairs for Farsi-speaking magazines, papers and
news websites both inside and outside the country. He has authored a book,
which has been published in Iran and Germany. He can be contacted at shahir@iranamerica.com
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
