Amid the Bluster, Iran and the United States Might Just Give Diplomacy a Chance
A rare meeting to include both American and Iranian officials brings a glint of optimism
Despite recent test-firings of missiles and sporadic bursts of bluster by Tehran, there are growing indications that Iran might be preparing to accept preliminary talks about its nuclear program with a group of countries that includes the United States.

It would hardly be the first time that tough actions or rhetoric presage diplomatic movement; such tactics are a time-honored method countries use to position themselves before any give-and-take begins.
"I think both sides are softening," says Gary Sick, a longtime Iran expert with Columbia University who served on the National Security Council during the Iran hostage crisis. "I see a little glimmer of hope here."
This Saturday, Iranian officials are to meet with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana in Geneva to discuss recent proposals each side has given the other. And for the first time in direct discussions with Iran on its nuclear program, there will be an American in the room—the No. 3 U.S. diplomat, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns.
Burns is not expected to negotiate, and the administration says his presence—which breaks a self-imposed taboo—is a one-time gesture. Still, European officials are pleased at the more direct U.S. role, and the shift suggests that the long-running nuclear stalemate with Iran is arriving at a potentially key juncture.
Though an unambiguous breakthrough seems unlikely over the weekend, some Iranian officials are interested in finding a way to move forward, based largely on an idea presented in private in June by Solana on behalf of a six-nation group.
The idea is to get a conversation going about what full-fledged negotiations would look like between Iran and the P-5 plus 1: the five permanent United Nations Security Council members (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China) plus Germany. The group's new proposal has been dubbed "freeze for freeze." Iran would have to stop all new nuclear activity, such as installing more centrifuges for uranium enrichment, and the P-5 plus 1 would halt consideration of new U.N. sanctions for a period of six weeks. Showing new flexibility, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explicitly signed off on the idea.
State Department officials call it a short-term, interim step with the aim of getting Iran to the bargaining table. Once there, as the group has demanded all along, Iran is supposed to suspend all its nuclear work for the duration of negotiations, while the Security Council would suspend its sanctions.
"We have seen some positive remarks," says one official. But whether Iran would be willing to comply and reverse its position on an issue ballyhooed as a national cause remains in deep doubt.
The negotiating group has sweetened the incentives Iran would receive in a future nuclear deal, acknowledging not only that Iran has a right to develop peaceful nuclear energy but that it would receive technical and financial help for proliferation-resistant light-water reactors. The official at State calls the package "generous" and says the administration remains committed to a diplomatic resolution.
Tehran is showing unaccustomed interest, if vaguely. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told American journalists in New York this month that he sees potential for new talks and that the proposal from the United States and its negotiating partners was being closely examined. Ali Akbar Velayati, the foreign policy adviser to Iran's supreme spiritual leader, has publicly urged accepting negotiations. His boss, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is Iran's ultimate authority on foreign and defense policy—not the country's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"His [Ahmadinejad's] influence on the nuclear file has waned, and Khamenei is firmly in charge," says Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Indeed, Khamenei's hand may be behind the perplexing pairing of modest Iranian overtures with the blunt warnings against an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by either the United States or Israel that accompanied the missile firings in early July. The main impulse behind the Iranian test-firings seemed to be to deter any attack rather than to advance its military capabilities. One Revolutionary Guards official allied with Khamenei vowed that if there were a strike on Iran, "Tel Aviv and U.S. naval fleet in the Persian Gulf will be the first targets which will be set on fire in Iran's crushing response."
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
Iran will have a nuclear bomb next year.
There is no doubt that Iran is the greatest national security threat to the state of Israel. Two nuclear bombs would destroy Israel. Given the overwhelming amount of evidence, anyone who doubts that Iran is actively seeking technology to build nuclear weapons is simply delusional. Those who believe the Iranian regime is willing to forgo what it sees as the divinely inspired mission of eliminating Israel are, at best, dangerously naïve. Those who think Iranian leaders are more worried about survival than reaching paradise and attaining Islam’s ultimate victory, are not listening with open ears. All too many Westerners fall prey to the soft bigotry that presumes men like Ahmadinejad are incapable of saying what they mean and meaning what they say. The West should wake up: http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2007/12/fw-peaceful-majority.html
For Iran,"negotiation" and "compromise" are euphemisms for shame and surrender.
For Iran,"negotiation" and "compromise" are euphemisms for shame and surrender.
In the new Cold War shaping up between Islamism and the democratic West, Israel holds the front line. Once again, the values of the opposing sides are irreconcilable. In the Arab and Muslim order, power is absolute and has to be victorious, so "negotiation" and "compromise" are euphemisms for shame and surrender. Islamist Iran has made itself the driving force. The terrorist movements Hizbullah and Hamas are both Iranian satellites, and their presence on Israel's borders ensures that Iran can already engage in terrorism on its own terms and at times of its own choosing. As to the danger of nuke Iran :
http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2008/01/nuclear-power-and-anti-semitism.html
King Coal most powerful in the U. S.
The reserves of coal in the U.S. is placed at 190 yrs. I would recommend that none of it is used as coal but squeezed and heated as Hitler did when he was running out of plane fuel and gasoline, etc. It worked and he ended up with refinable oil. Let's get moving and make jet fuel, gasoline, diesel fuel, all other residual products that can be of use to our war machine and the decreasing of energy prices to the Man in the street in America. Add these billions of barrels to what we already have in the ground and we have no shortage even providing it only to ourselves and not planning on selling it to our needy allies and enemies. When we are swimming in the fuels of war it is time to strike and make the difference between the world continuing in a more peaceful climate and the U.S. negotiating from a putrified position of need and weakness. What is wrong with our politicians? Haven't any of you played as much of a game of chess? The only communication that works with the middle east is one of overwhelming force and dedication that their planned domination will not only fail but be neutralized by our superior planning and supply and our willingness to show them we have no fear of their promises of apicalypse because their countries will be the only ones experiencing the apocalypse delivered by non-islamic hands as of result of being threatened and placed on guard by war practice. We have long-practiced war at this point and need no further practice. Just the go ahead by a people that plans to survive and make sure you don't.
advertisement









