Face-Off
America and Iran are locked in a test of wills over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Is there a way out short of war?
There is also a deeper question about the U.S. strategy: Every other major player on the Iran issue favors direct U.S.-Iranian talks. On that point, Washington stands alone. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says direct talks would achieve nothing, and others argue that Iran is untrustworthy and that general talks would only strengthen and legitimize its regime. The lone exception to the ban is a narrowly structured discussion with Iran about its conduct in Iraq, expected to begin soon in Baghdad. But the overall approach is coming under fire, including from Republicans like Sen. Richard Lugar. "Here is an example of how not to conduct diplomacy," says Lawrence Wilkerson, the State Department's chief of staff in Bush's first term. "You don't talk to evil in Dick Cheney's book."
Secret agent. Not surprisingly, Iran wants to talk. In 2003, with the administration briefly riding high from its quick toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iran secretly proposed talks that would cover terrorism, its nuclear program, and Iraq. It had the OK of Iran's supreme spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But Washington rebuffed the offer. Last month, an Iranian national security official with a U.S. green card slipped into Washington, apparently seeking contact with U.S. officials. He seems to have met with none.
"Bargain." Recent American visitors to Iran also say that some officials want a dialogue over a "grand bargain"--a deal that would include security guarantees, the end of U.S. sanctions, renewed trade, and diplomatic recognition in return for Iranian concessions on the nuclear front, terrorism, and so forth. Many analysts doubt a comprehensive package would pass muster, given hard-line opposition in Tehran and the U.S. demand that Iran back down on enrichment, a program that enjoys fervent popular support. But they believe it should be tried, if only to show that diplomacy was given every chance.
Still, there is good reason to be skeptical of Iran's sincerity. In a speech meant for regime insiders, the former head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rowhani, refuted claims by hard-liners that he was too pliable in negotiations with the Europeans: "In reality, by creating a tame situation, we could finish Isfahan."
That revelation has further deepened the distrust of Iran throughout the Bush administration, fueled by Iran's harboring of al Qaeda operatives, its alleged involvement in terrorist attacks on U.S. personnel in Saudi Arabia, and its support for anti-U.S. militias in Iraq. And then there's the legacy of the American hostages held for 444 agonizing days. "That created an image of Iran that really has never changed," says Gary Sick, the primary aide for Iran policy during the 1979-81 crisis, now at Columbia University. "We never made up with Iran like we did with North Vietnam."
The sanctions being prepared are intended to rattle the regime. For the United States, there is little left to ban, save for imported Iranian rugs and pistachios. European and U.S. officials, however, are looking at "targeted" sanctions--outside of the U.N. if the Security Council cannot act. They include banning the sale of dual-use technologies to Iran, barring overseas travel by its leaders, freezing bank accounts, canceling trade credits, and closing down possibly illicit financial dealings. The idea is to hurt Iran's leaders, not ordinary people.
advertisement
