The US and Iran show off but agree to talk
New York.They will finally talk. The US and Iran announced on Sunday May 13 that they will discuss Iraq’s security at a meeting in Baghdad. The talks will be held at the ambassador level and should take place in the next few weeks according to Gordon Johndroe, the White House’s National Security spokesman. “ The purpose [of the talks] is to try to make sure that the Iranians play a productive role in Iraq”, Mr Johndroe said. This level meeting is an historic occurrence as the US and Iran have not held high-level talks with Iran since 1979. There had been speculation that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would meet her Iranian counterpart at a conference on Iraq in Egypt last week, but in the end it did not happen. Washington is looking for a solution to the political and security crisis in Baghdad. These discussions give Tehran an opportunity to counter the US-led movement to isolate the Islamic Republic because of its nuclear program. Despite these upcoming talks, tension between the two countries run deep. During a two-day visit to the United Arab Emirates, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday warned the US of “severe retaliation” in case of an attack against Tehran. He was responding to comments Dick Cheney made on May 11 during a trip in the Gulf region. The US vice-president warned that the US would not let Iran get nuclear weapons. “Contrary to those who viewed the US military buildup in the region as a prelude to an attack on Iran, it seems quite likely to me that it was intended to strengthen the US negotiating position in preparation for talks”, Gary Sick, a former member of the National Security under presidents Ford, Carter and Regan, and an Iran expert at Columbia University, wrote in an email message in response to a request by the.point.is. news agency. “In my view, getting the two parties into the same room at the same time with even a limited agenda is quite an accomplishment, given the fact that the US had said only a few months ago that it would not consider such a thing unless Iran met a series of conditions (which they have not)”. Raphaël Ramos, a research associate at the European Stategic Intelligence & Security Center (ESISC) in Brussels, links the Iranian nuclear issue to the the missile defense system the US is trying to place in Europe. The project is creating tensions between Washington and Moscow : « The international community needs to be united to deal with Iran’s nuclear program », Mr Ramos says. Strains between the US and Russia will harm its efforts ». Mr Sick underlines that “The Iranians have been angling for direct talks since at least May 2003, after their initial collaboration with the US on Afghanistan dissolved into the “Axis of Evil.” “Now they have it, Mr Sick adds. Will they be sufficiently smart and unified (given their own poisonous internal disputes) to make it work? It is very difficult after more than 27 years of hostility and vitriol to believe that either the US or Iran is capable of a more enlightened approach to bilateral problems”. Jean-Cosme Delaloye / New York “US has concluded that a military attack on Iran would be a disaster”By Gary Sick, former member of National Security Council under presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan Both the US and (less stridently) Iran continue to maintain that their upcoming talks will focus only on Iraq, not on the nuclear file or on such matters as terrorism or the Arab-Israel dispute. I understand that this is dogma — at least in Washington — though I must admit I do not really Perhaps the system will not bear anything more than this limited opening. In my view, getting the two parties into the same room at the same time with even a limited agenda is quite an accomplishment, given the fact that the US had said only a few months ago that it would not consider such a thing unless Iran met a series of conditions (which they have not). It is reminiscent of the recent Bush administration experience with North Korea, where we had said we would never have direct talks or “do a Clinton”-style agreement, and then we did exactly that. And no one (except the hardliners in the US and Iran who are watching this process with utter anguish and disbelief) was the least bit troubled. Contrary to those who viewed the US military buildup in the region as a prelude to an attack on Iran, it seems quite likely to me that it was intended to strengthen the US negotiating position in preparation for talks. To me, the crucial turning point was the Iranian capture of the British sailors; if the US was simply waiting for a pretext to escalate into an attack on Iran, that was the perfect chance. But instead, the US suddenly provided Red Cross access to the five Iranian Revolutionary Guards who had been arrested and disappeared into the US secret prison system in Iraq, and then an Iranian diplomat (who had been kidnapped off the street by Iraqi security forces that many thought were closely tied to the CIA) was miraculously released just as Iran relinquished the captive Brits. If you think that was a pure coincidence, then perhaps you also believe in the tooth fairy. From my limited perch, the Iranian operation appeared to be a demonstration of how they could respond indirectly — but effectively — to US provocations without escalating to a full-fledged confrontation. And the US response demonstrated that they understood the point. Then we began talking about talking. . . In short, I am convinced that the US has concluded that a military attack on Iran would be a disaster — for Iran and for the region, needless to say, but perhaps more importantly for President Bush and the Republican Party and its chances to influence or control US politics for the next generation. The alternative is engagement, which is what is happening regardless of the words that are used by the White House. This process of seeking diplomatic settlements with North Korea, and Iran (the two remaining members of the Axis of Evil since Saddam is no longer with us) and of actively pursuing a negotiated solution to the Arab-Israel dispute is a remarkable shift — what an old military colleague of mine once described as “an imperceptible 180-degree turn.” I personally ascribe this to the combined influence of Condoleeza Rice at State and Bob Gates at Defense — both old-line cold warriors out of the realist tradition. In particular, the appointment of Gates to Defense has shifted the balance of power in the administration against Cheney, who can still fulminate and utter threats, but who is on the defensive, along with his allies on the right. The big question is whether Bush is actually on board for this ride or is just willing to let it go for now in the absence of any better options. If he is unwilling to make any of the hard decisions that would be required for any real progress with Iran on Iraq — and on the many other issues that I think will inevitably arise in the course of direct negotiations — then there is little reason to be optimistic. The Iranians have been angling for direct talks since at least May 2003, after their initial collaboration with the US on Afghanistan dissolved into the “Axis of Evil.” Now they have it. Will they be sufficiently smart and unified (given their own poisonous internal disputes) to make it work? It is very difficult after more than 27 years of hostility and vitriol to believe that either the US or Iran is capable of a more enlightened approach to bilateral problems. The opportunity is there. Is either side able or willing to grasp it, in light of their domestic political battles? Don’t count on it. But the odds are marginally better than they were last week. A French version of this story was published on May 15 2007 in the Swiss daily papers 24heures and Tribune de Genève. CommentsYou must be logged in to post a comment. |
||
 |
 |
 |
