Sunday
Aug292010
UPDATED Iran: Tehran Declares Readiness for Nuclear Talks?
Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 14:07 
UPDATE 29 August: A flurry of comments out of Tehran today on the uranium enrichment discussions indicate Iran may be opening the door for direct talks with Washington and other countries....Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani --- in a shift from his comments last Sunday that Iran would negotiate with anyone in the world except the US --- has said that the country has never ruled out talks with the 5+1 Powers (US, Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany) or the Vienna Group (the US, Russia, France, and the International Atomic Energy Agency).
Larijani insisted, "We have never ruled out talks, but sometime they left the table and showed misconduct," presumably a reference to the breakdown of discussions after Iran met the 5+1 in Geneva last October.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast also said Tehran is ready for discussions: "We have expressed our readiness for talks with Vienna Group and we believe the way is paved for talks to start: Talks can be started sooner if they specify details and we reach an agreement on place and date of the negotiations."
However, Mehmanparast added comments that muddled the apparent openness to talks:
If the US seriously seeks to revive relations with Iran, it should make changes in its attitude. Washington should prove that it will never repeat previous mistakes and will not pursue misguided and hostile policies towards the Iranian nation. We should sense a maturity in remarks and attitude of US officials and they should accept that rights of nations must be respected....There is no reason to prepare the grounds for establishing relations at the time the US attacks other countries, violates rights of nations and sees its interests in war and massacre....Such conduct will not work toward a country like Iran.
Iranian media are highlighting Thursday's statement by US State Department spokesman P J Crowley,
"We are hopeful that the constructive meetings, both at the IAEA and with the P5+1, can be set up in the next few weeks."
---
ORIGINAL STORY (27 August): EA staff have been in the midst of a debate over Iran's approach to uranium enrichment talks with the US as part of the "5+1" (US, UK, France, Germany, China, Russia). After a series of statements last week by Iranian officials, including the Supreme Leader, the President, and Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, the central question has been: is there a unified voice coming out of Tehran on whether Iran will pursue discussions and, if so, will there be any pre-conditions?
Yesterday, we noted the latest public statement, in which Iran's head of atomic energy proposed a joint consortium with Russia for fuel for the Bushehr nuclear reactor, and we looked to wider significance:
The presentation is that Iran is a responsible, low-enriching state, working under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency and with the help of Russia. In essence, it is a proposal to the Western powers of what a nuclear Iran would look like if sanctions were eased and/or concessions were made.
Salehi’s statement is therefore much more than a proposed arrangement for Bushehr and other plants. It is a challenge to Russia to endorse this vision of Iran’s nuclear future, giving Moscow the opportunity to serve as a broker between Iran and the West.
An EA correspondent advances the discussion this morning:
Ayatollah Khamenei has a range of people who have his ear and whose opinion he is willing to listen to. He hears them all, makes his assessments, sees what they have to offer.
Here we have Salehi with his pragmatic, nuclear technician's world view. If the West can come to terms with that, Khamenei would then appraise the relative benefits of making an approach, judging the extent to which he sees Iran's interests being served. Once he makes a decision, he can bring in political capital to bear ensure it is accepted.
The Supreme Leader is not omnipotent. Instead, his political calculations must use the instincts, knowledge and experience, which he has gained in more than 20 years in power-broking, in order to manage the different and conflicting power centres in Iran with the ultimate aim of maintaining his central position. That is something which he has been pretty successful at so far.
Of course, the divisions within the conservative establishment are in contrast with the entirely mythological paradigm of political unity, which did not even hold during the Khomeini period. The different threads running through the fabric of the conservatives should be seen as threads that Khamenei can pull --- or refuse to pull --- depending on how he reads the situation. In that sense his title of "rahbar" can be read in the sense of "conductor", as in the conductor of an orchestra.
This time last year Ahmadinejad appeared eager for talks and the rest of the conservatives shot him down. At that time Khamenei either allowed this to happen a) because he had a better idea or b) because he actually desired that the President receive a put down or c) he could not risk preventing it because of the high cost in political capital or d) a bit of all of the above.
This year I think we can see clearly that he is calling for a ceasefire in the intra-conservative in-fighting before the international dimension is re-opened
So I didn't read Khamenei's speech of 18 August in the way that Scott Lucas read it [as a rejection of discussions with the US in the near-future]. I think it was quite natural that Khamenei refrain from expend valuable political capital at this point by appearing conducive to talks. In this critical situation, it is logical for him to hold himself above the fray and fall back on familiar rhetorical ground. He can play "hard to get" while allowing his carefully vetted ambassadors to act as intermediaries.
We probably should not read too much into what Khamenei says on the international issue at the moment. The domestic scene on the other hand, that's a different story....
Reader Comments (11)
Thank you..really informative!!
Maybe everyone - the US, Israel and Iran - has backed themself into a corner here by their history of making belligerent statements and sanctions (Israel,US) and uncompromising rejections (Iran). Philip Garibaldi (ex CIA) thinks this is true of Obama and Netanyahu, and I think the same can be said for Khamenei.
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/08/25/boxed-into-a-corner-on-iran/" rel="nofollow">http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/08/25/...
More on the lack of "one voice" on the Iran nuclear dossier in the US:
Obama Resists Pressure for Red Line on Iran's Nuclear Capability
By Gareth Porter
President Barack Obama's refusal in a White House briefing earlier this month to announce a "red line" in regard to the Iran nuclear programme represented another in a series of rebuffs of pressure from Defence Secretary Robert Gates for statement that the United States will not accept its existing stocks of low enriched uranium.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52633
I don't know who is the "EA correspondant" who is as pragmatic as Mr Salehi; we have not a normal country that pushes the interest of iranian people and Iran forward, a country that respects human rights and international laws; we have a country that sent hundred of thousand kids on the mine fields and has filled terrorism everywhere on the planet; the issue is not if SL accepts the deal with the foreigners allowing this to happen but if "5+1" accept the proposition of Salehi and I am sure that they won't because they don't want a country as Iran to enrich the uranium. This was one of the main conditions last October !
Sorry ! the word above is "feeded" and not "filled"
And .... it's why, one of the ex-IAEA aide has said "Iran has material for 1-2 atom bombs":
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67P20L20100826" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67P20L201...
And, an other one :
"Quarter of US Iraq deaths due to Iran groups-envoy ":
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE67P22D.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE67P...
Therefore, we have to keep in mind who is the "enemy" !
Ange,
Merci four your necessary corrections. I tend to Scott's interpretation for several reasons: the most important is that going "nuclear" has become an obsession and the raison d'etre for the regime. An obsession because of its lofty ambitions to become a 'world power' and take over control in the Middle East, a raison d'etre because it has nothing else to offer to its own people as a sign of legitimacy. Wherever you look, be it the oil industry, domestic technology or the economy in general, this regime has failed to fulfill its original duty to develop them and compete with neighbouring countries like Turkey or the Emirates.
Proposing a joint consortium with Russia for fuel for the Bushehr nuclear reactor is just another ploy to divide the world community on this issue, and to buy time for ongoing nuclear projects.
Imho this regime will never comply with international demands, but continue to play games for the above-mentioned reasons. Its policy follows a military logic, not a diplomatic one. And the SL would rather sacrifice his people instead of taking the hemlock as Khomeini did. His absolute contempt for them has become quite evident during the past 14 months. 20 years ago the IR was embroiled in a regional war, today it threatens to make war on the whole world.
Arshama
Well it looks like my pragmatist’s world view created a stir with one or two readers.
It’s revealing for me that my attempt to see the nuclear issue through strategic eyes provoked some to criticize me for not seeing the debate in terms of human rights, international law and Iran’s nuclear “obsession”.
All of these are issues which embody strong calls for debate and changes in Iran’s behavior. However, I would always ask people who would prefer to steer the debate about the nuclear issue to human rights to ask themselves where their line of argument would ultimately lead. Similarly with Iran’s lack of respect for international law – against which the Islamic Republic is well accustomed to countering with Guantanamo Bay, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – even Hurricane Katrina if the debate stretches to a nation’s treatment of its own citizens.
I am not saying that Iran cannot be criticized – we must always attempt to hold power accountable. Rather I say to those who promote these positions to look carefully at what the ultimate consequences of justifying the media demonization of the Iranian regime actually are for the international situation. There are, after all, plenty of powerful lobbies and opportunistic forces who would be happy to back these arguments with media and, eventually, perhaps even military power. Do we have any illusions that commuting the sentence of Sakineh would win Iran any favors on the international chess board? I think not.
As for Iran’s nuclear “obsession” – the case is even simpler. Are we tired of debate? Is it time to give up on negotiations? Because is that not the ultimate result of holding to the paradigm that Iran is irrationally attached to the pursuit of nuclear weapons at all costs? An embodiment of the conflict between these two counter-positions may be evident between the Pentagon and the White House at this very moment. We actually have compelling evidence that Iran knows it would be much better off without actual nuclear weapons but only with some measure of mastery over the complete fuel cycle – something which it now appears officials are satisfied to boast about.
There may well be those within the establishment who subscribe to some kind of insane nuclear apocalyptism (perhaps there are also some of them among the US Neo-Cons) but unless we insist on taking seriously only the hardest of hardline positions on the nuclear issue, there is still room to look at Iran’s political situation with sufficient nuance to warrant further negotiations.
RE "Do we have any illusions that commuting the sentence of Sakineh would win Iran any favors on the international chess board? I think not"
I wonder about the role individual humanitarian gestures can play in negotiations on broader issues. Take for instance the remarks made by Gen James Jones, the US National Security Adviser Photo when asked whether Mr Obama may meet the Iranian leader after Ahmadinejad requested face-to-face talks with Mr Obama during the UN General Assembly meeting in New York.
Gen Jones said: “Ultimately if we find a convergence of paths all things are possible.
“One thing they might do is return our three hikers. That would be an important gesture. It could lead to better relations.”
If the US is sending signal about its sensitivity to a gesture from Iran, Iran might be able to expect some appreciation from the US for a gesture from their side. However, it seems the current climate is so fraught with tension, and both sides have backed themselves so far into their respective corners, that this is probably unlikely....
Kerea
You are right when we argue about normal people but they are not ; their aim is beyond laws, nuclear issue and human rights; they don't care if 5 Mo people are killed in order to reach their purpose ; have you heard about a " croissant ", going from Palestine, Israel to Est of Pakistan ? this is their aim, they want to conquer this territory, regning in the region, becoming the "Master"; now they show their nice face, innocent face, they will have their negociation in september on nuclear issue perhaps reaching a good outcome for foreign countries; but they are the cheaters, very clever ( like all iranians, in majority they are educated and what 's more, they have common sense), they will never forget the "Target" and after few months , we will discover that they have nuclear bomb because they will counter all obstacles, they will embezzle all the radioactive wastes, to make their bombs ! and it will be too late;
And what about their interferences in other countries, in Afganistan, Pakistan, Irak, Palestine, Lebanon ....do you think that if 5+1 say " good boy, don't interfer in those countries , don't feed terrorism ..." will they accept ?
I don't know how foreign countries will be able to resolve this important problem with Iran, this enormous task, and I rely on their intelligence , they are capable to rule different kinds of countries, more capable than us, because they are the presidents of those countries and perhaps they would find the solution.
Don't believe in nice and innocent faces of the rulers in Iran; it's because of the sanctions and the lack of freedom to reach easily their aim ! the "Croissant" !!