UPDATED Iran-US Special: Obama Extends His Hand "Engagement, Not Conflict"

UPDATE 6 August: Now see our new analysis, "The 4-Step Collapse of Obama’s 'Engagement' Into Confusion".

UPDATE 1345 GMT: Oops, looks like some official in Washington (or London or Paris) is out to cause trouble for Obama. He/she has leaked Iran's official replies, concerning possible uranium enrichment talks, to the "Vienna Group" and to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The lucky reporter, George Jahn of Associated Press, then puts out the "correct" line (as opposed to Obama's "correct" line in the Ignatius article):

As Iran and world powers prepare for new nuclear talks, letters by Tehran's envoys to top international officials and shared with The Associated Press suggest major progress is unlikely, with Tehran combative and unlikely to offer any concessions. Two letters, both written late last month, reflect Iran's apparent determination to continue the nuclear activities that have led to new rounds of U.N., EU, and U.S. sanctions in recent weeks over fears that Tehran might be seeking to develop nuclear arms.

At the same time, world powers preparing to talk to Tehran are unwilling to cede ground on key demands concerning Iran's uranium enrichment activities, dimming prospects that the new negotiations will ease tensions.

Because the quotes from Iran's letters (e.g., ""This kind of [Western] behavior ... is absolutely unacceptable") have been ripped out of context, there is no way of telling if Tehran is in fact being intransigent. You, and presumably President Obama, will just have to accept the word of the "Western diplomat" who went to Jahn.

(A side note for the reporter and Associated Press: if you were really hoping to bring out helpful information for readers to evaluate, instead of providing the conclusions from the diplomat, wouldn't you just print Iran's letters --- or at least paragraphs from the letters --- in full?)

---

David Ignatius of The Washington Post, who is often used by Administration officials to put out the "right" line on US foreign policy, serves as an important messenger today:

President Obama put the issue of negotiating with Iran firmly back on the table Wednesday in an unusual White House session with journalists. His message was that even as U.N. sanctions squeeze Tehran, he is leaving open a "pathway" for a peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue.

"It is very important to put before the Iranians a clear set of steps that we would consider sufficient to show that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons," Obama said, adding: "They should know what they can say 'yes' to." As in the past, he left open the possibility that the United States would accept a deal that allows Iran to maintain its civilian nuclear program, so long as Iran provides "confidence-building measures" to verify that it is not building a bomb.

The renewed opening to Iran also included a proposal for talks on Afghanistan. Obama said he favored a "separate track" for discussion of this issue, in which the two sides have a "mutual interest" in fighting the Taliban. He urged that, as part of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's push for "reintegration" with the Taliban, Iran should be included in regional talks about stability. "Iran should be a part of that and could be a constructive partner," he said.

Why is Obama talking engagement with Iran when many analysts are debating the growing risks of a military confrontation? Administration officials cite two factors: First, the sanctions against Iran are beginning to bite, making Tehran potentially more interested in dialogue; and second, U.S. intelligence reports indicate that the Iranians have had technical troubles in their nuclear-enrichment program -- which allows more time for diplomacy.

The White House chose an unusual way to send its signals to Tehran. A small group of journalists was invited to a "background session" on Iran policy with "senior National Security Staff." The briefer turned out to be Obama. An official said later that the president plans more of these unscripted, informal meetings.

The only error in these paragraphs is Ignatius's implication that this is a change in approach, at least on the part of the President. Obama has always favoured a dialogue with the Iranian regime: while the nuclear issue was the first one to be addressed --- given its symbolic position, it had to be resolved before other matters could be tackled --- engagement with Tehran would also pay dividends for US policy in the Middle East, including Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as removing a troublesome issue in relations with Russia and China.

This approach has been hindered by another faction in the Administration which has always seen discussions as a preliminary --- since they believe Tehran will not reach agreement --- to tougher measures. It was set back last autumn by the breakdown of the talks with Iran, which reached a high point in Geneva in October, over uranium enrichment. At that point, Obama and those who favoured "engagement" had to turn their attention to the pressure from the US Congress --- and from Israel --- for a get-tough signal with sanctions packages not only the UN but from Washington.

Those sanctions have now been adopted, so the President and other advisors can now turn back to the possibility of dialogue. What's more, they can use the rationale --- which has some support in fact as well in rhetoric --- that Iran has been hurt economically by disinvestment and restrictions on trade, especially in the energy sector. So the impression will be given that the US is bargaining from strength with Iran almost as a supplicant, rather than a equal at the table.

So is there anything new in the report, besides the headline of Obama briefing journalists directly? Yes, but it is in these words, "a proposal for talks on Afghanistan".

The Afghanistan dimension has always been a significant factor pushing the US towards engagement with Iran. Advisors like Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and his assistant Vali Nasr have always put forth the argument that co-operation with Iran is essential, especially in areas like the west of Afghanistan, if there is to be a lasting political resolution.

That need has only become greater with the escalation of military and political difficulties for the US in Afghanistan. Washington has effectively (though quietly) scrapped the commitment to withdraw combat forces by mid-2011, but other countries such as Holland are pulling out. That only elevates the significance of getting some agreement with some outside actors on the way forward.

This is not to say, of course, that the path will be any easier than it was last year. The conflict inside the Administration has taken its toll, with the top State Department specialist on Iran, John Limbert, leaving. The pressure from the US Congress --- as well as the war chatter --- will not evaporate. And Tehran is unlikely to put out an unclenched fist if it believes the image is one of Iran approaching the US on its knees.

Still, with President Ahmadinejad --- in one of the under-appreciated stories of the week --- putting out the line that Tehran is ready to talk with Washington as well as with other countries on the nuclear issue, it looks like Obama may have signalled, "Welcome back, Mahmoud, where have you been?"

Comments

[WitteKr]

Kabul, Aug 5 (AFP) Afghan President Hamid Karzai left today for neighbouring Iran to attend a regional conference, his office said. - The Western-backed Karzai will hold talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, aiming to building stronger ties between the countries, Karzai's office said in a statement.
http://www.ptinews.com/news/846989_Afghan-president-heads-to-Iran-" rel="nofollow">http://www.ptinews.com/news/846989_Afghan-presi...

[Catherine]

I wonder if the regime is in too much disarray and is too distracted by all its internal back-biting to see what has been very clear writing on the wall for quite some time: the US needs all the help it can get in Afghanistan.

On another note, just to keep the president on his toes, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity group (former CIA, Special Forces and Army intelligence personnel) has written him a memo. In it they describe in detail what they see as the greatest threats of the warmongering faction and give specific advice on how Obama can prevent a re-run of what happpened with Iraq and effectively silence the "guns of August": http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/080310c.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/080310c.html.

[Catherine]

Obama admin's extended hand will be grasping at straws according to the party-poopers at the AP:

... letters by Tehran's envoys to top international officials and shared with The Associated Press suggest major progress is unlikely, with Tehran combative and unlikely to offer any concessions....... At the same time, world powers preparing to talk to Tehran are unwilling to cede ground on key demands concerning Iran's uranium enrichment activities, dimming prospects that the new negotiations will ease tensions.

A few quotes from the letters underneath photograph half-way down:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear" rel="nofollow">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_eu...

[Kurt]

Thanks for this, Scott. I'd thought along similar lines on a few key points. The curious delivery reminds me of a few odd overtures in the past, like the famous one by Albright. Such it is with the delicate dance both countries have to make considering their respective domestic audiences.

I would hope that engaging on the mutual interest of Afghanistan would be less controversial, as it was done (albeit quietly) in the past Bush administration. But, well, I don't take anything like that lightly given the tone in Washington the past couple years. No matter the legitimate policy argument, I fear any such move as being ginned up as "appeasement" or some such nonsense. I wouldn't expect it before midterms, irregardless.

Thanks for another brief 'In Memoriam' of John Limbert, as well.

[Kurt]

@ UPDATE 1345 GMT

Yes, no sooner had this Obama move been mentioned on MSNBC then the same old narrative of Iran "stalling'" and Ehud Barak and Jerusalem's mayor, Nir Barkat, were shown reiterating the "sanctions won't work" line.

I don't know if the two are related, or if this is just what could have been expected anyway.

[ScottLucas11]

More on this in the morning....

S.