US Agrees to Negotiations With Iran on Silly Condition
Marking a surprising shift in its position with Iran, the Bush administration on Wednesday agreed to join E3 bigwigs Britain, Germany and France at the negotiating table. The US had previously refused to participate in direct negotiations with Iran on the grounds that it would legitimize the regime there.
The Bush administration had come under intense pressure from members of Congress, prominent Republicans and its European allies to open a dialogue with Iran. The policy reversal was the latest sign that Washington was ready to make concessions and adopt a more pragmatic approach if that was the cost of preserving a broad international front towards Iran. And as we enter the final strait of an attempt to obtain a UN Security Council resolution against Iran, it has been recognised that the administration needs to be seen as doing everything it can to exhaust the diplomatic process, aka covering its rear end. It is quite difficult to say they have exhausted the diplomatic process without engaging in diplomatic talks.The administration stipulated that it would only enter into negotiations if Iran suspended its nuclear fuel program first, something Iran has refused to do, which, ironically, is the issue at the very heart of the dispute with Iran. "However we look at it, [the US step] is positive. But will it get somewhere? I don't know," says Shirzad Bozorgmehr, a senior editor of the English-language Iran News in Tehran. "It is significant, but there are several preconditions that Iran already said it would not agree to ... such as suspending enrichment."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made the announcement before leaving for Vienna for talks with Russia and China - both resisting proposed sanctions against Iran - as well as France, Germany and the UK. Tehran has previously signaled its willingness to talk directly to the US while insisting it would not stop enriching uranium. Hence, this story may be a whole lot of nothing. Washington says it's willing to negotiate if Iran abandons the nuclear program that the negotiations would be held to address. What kind of sense does that make? Many see this move as pure White House strategery to give the impression they have been diplomatic leading up to a standoff over Iran in the UN. See, we tried to talk to them. We tried diplomacy. It just didn't work.
Rice stressed that Iran must first "fully and verifiably suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities" before the US would join the talks. The threat of military action remained on the table, she said. Saying the decision "gives the negotiation track new energy," Dr. Rice characterized the redirection of US policy as President Bush's determination "to do everything we can to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear problem."
Responding to the US initiative, Javier Solana, European foreign policy chief, said "Direct US participation would be the strongest and most positive signal of our common wish to reach an agreement with Iran. This important statement by the US administration reinforces our hope that out of the current discussions we will be able to establish a new and co-operative relationship with Iran, based on mutual confidence." The last known direct talks with Iran were broken off by the US three years ago, when Washington accused Tehran of allowing al-Qaeda operatives on its territory to plan attacks in Saudi Arabia. Neoconservatives in the US reacted with dismay to the initiative, seeing it as the latest example of what they see as betrayal of President George W. Bush's "freedom agenda." "It is a terrible idea," commented Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute. "It incentivises everyone in the world to blackmail the US."
- May 31, 2006
This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it
Click here to manage subscription