Iran Responds to Obama New Year Message

Related Post: Three Degrees Of Engagement - The Obama Message To Iran

Earlier today, we projected a three-step process to interpret the course of "engagement" raised by President Obama's message to the Iranian people and leaders. Specifically, we cautioned:

"Obama’s message raises the prospect of a genuine negotiation, yet the pointed challenge to Iranian leaders to show that they are peaceful also indicates that Washington wants the higher ground from the start of talks. In itself, that general position is to be expected. It is also to be expected, however, that Iran will portray itself as the peaceful party and ask the US to mend its past ways.

Well, Step 2 --- Iran Responds --- is following that script exactly:

Aliakbar Javanfekr, an aide to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Iran welcomed "the interest of the American government to settle differences".

But he said that the US government "should realise its previous mistakes and make an effort to amend them".

Meanwhile, Iranian energy minister, Parviz Fattah, was telling the World Water Forum that Tehran would "finish and operate" the Bushehr nuclear plant by the end of the year: "Iran has chosen a direction for achieving peaceful nuclear energy. We have mainly reached this aim."

All very expected: on the one hand, Iran is welcoming the prospect of talks with the US. On the other hand, it is setting out clear lines that it does not want crossed --- specifically, Iranian sovereignty over a nuclear energy programme.

So, within 24 hours, on to Step 3: "What is important is that Washington does not follow Obama’s message by trying to box Iran in on issues such as the nuclear programme, Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, and general relations with the Arab world."

Three Degrees Of Engagement: The Obama Message To Iran

Latest Post: Iran Responds to Obama New Year Message

So President Obama, following weeks of discussion within his Administration, has made a very public move towards Iran with his Nohruz (Iranian New Year) video message. Will this clear away the "muddle" of US policy, which we were discussing only yesterday, and offer a productive resolution of the difficulties in US-Iran relations?

Here's a three-step process to follow the road of engagement:

1. US STRATEGY

The Obama message is a public diplomacy masterpiece, similar to his January interview with Al-Arabiya speaking to the Arab and Islamic worlds.

Like President Bush, Obama spoke to the Iranian people about their heritage and achievements and a common sense of humanity. Unlike Bush, however, Obama also addressed directly Iranian leaders with the proposal of a diplomatic route to settlement of the issues in US-Iranian relations, overcoming the hostilities of the last 30 years.

That is a huge difference, as it sets aside the impression that US policy is seeking a "velvet revolution" for regime change.

The public diplomacy of Obama's general statement, however, did not even begin to outline the US approach to the "issues". Beyond the call for Iranian leaders to choose peace, Obama did not refer to the Iran nuclear programme. Nor did he broach the regional issues (Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine) shaping the US outlook.

That's to be expected, of course, in a message of goodwill: no need to complicate New Year with an overload of politics. Still, it means that the second step is awaited, and this has to come from Tehran not Washington.

2. IRAN'S RESPONSE

It would be foolhardy to expect Tehran to make any commitment or to raise the issues that Obama did not specify. There is, after all, a Presidential campaign being waged in Iran. President Ahmadinejad will not make any concession on Iran's current position, and it would be electoral suicide for any of his challengers to address the nuclear or regional issues in detail.

The most, therefore, that can be expected from Iran is a general response to match Obama's overture. That will still be very useful in "decoding" the Iranian perspective on engagement. Who offers the response? Does it propose direct talks? If so, will those talks occur before the elections in June? Is there a reference to the specific possibility of US-Iran co-operation on Afghanistan?

At the same time. this would only be a proposal to discuss. It would point to the continuation of the limited private talks that have probably occurred and possibly direct contacts later in the year.

Which puts the central question back to Washington.....

3. THE BROADER US APPROACH

The unanswerable question which has been percolating beneath US discussions since January is what happens if "engagement" doesn't unfold according to the American diplomatic script. Is the process one which will accept a negotiation with Iran to meet the interests of both sides? Or is it a case of seeing if Iran will diplomatically accept all US conditions and, if (and when) it does not do so, putting on more economic pressure?

Obama's message raises the prospect of a genuine negotiation, yet the pointed challenge to Iranian leaders to show that they are peaceful also indicates that Washington wants the higher ground from the start of talks.

In itself, that general position is to be expected. It is also to be expected, however, that Iran will portray itself as the peaceful party and ask the US to mend its past ways.

What is important is that Washington does not follow Obama's message by trying to box Iran in on issues such as the nuclear programme, Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, and general relations with the Arab world. The Clinton tour of the Middle East was foolish, if not dangerous, in its ham-fisted attempt to unite Arabs against the Tehran menace, thus isolating Iran from any place in the post-Gaza discussions and outcomes.

That Clinton approach raised the spectre of a Dennis Ross, who has long advocated the velvet fist strategy, shaping US policy. It's a prospect that Stephen Walt has warned against, in a blog that we have reprinted today.

It is too much to expect Washington in the near-future, as Walt suggests, to re-define its strategy so it will accept an Iran nuclear programme. What is important, however, is that the US does not follow Obama's message with pressure for further economic sanctions and that it damps the public rhetoric blaming Tehran for stoking every Middle Eastern fire.

In short, if there is a period of relative silence, rather than diplomatic fury, then the prospect of engagement- long-term engagement- is very real.

[Read the full text of Obama's message to Iran here]

Video: The Obama New Year's Message to Iran

Latest Post: Iran Responds to Obama New Year Message
Latest Post: Three Degrees Of Engagement: The Obama Message To Iran

Overnight President Obama spoke by video to "the leaders of Iran" (the transcript is below). Apparently there is reaction in the Iranian press. We'll watch developments and have a full analysis. The issue, however, is not that a message was sent --- President Bush did the same in December 2002 when the US launched Radio Farda to broadcast into Iran --- but the substance of "engagement" in Obama's words:

So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.

You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

TRANSCRIPT

THE PRESIDENT: Today I want to extend my very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world.

This holiday is both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal, and I hope that you enjoy this special time of year with friends and family.

In particular, I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nowruz is just one part of your great and celebrated culture. Over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place.

Here in the United States our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans. We know that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world.

For nearly three decades relations between our nations have been strained. But at this holiday we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together. Indeed, you will be celebrating your New Year in much the same way that we Americans mark our holidays -- by gathering with friends and family, exchanging gifts and stories, and looking to the future with a renewed sense of hope.

Within these celebrations lies the promise of a new day, the promise of opportunity for our children, security for our families, progress for our communities, and peace between nations. Those are shared hopes, those are common dreams.

So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.

You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.

I know that this won't be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: "The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence."

With the coming of a new season, we're reminded of this precious humanity that we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning.

Thank you, and Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak.

Death of a Blogger: Sayafi dies in Iranian Prison

News is emerging of the death of journalist and blogger Omidreza Mir Sayafi in Evin prison in Iran.

The 29-year-old Safayi's blogs were mostly on music and culture, but he was charged with "insulting Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei" and inciting others against national security. He was sentenced to two years in prison. A pending case accused him of "insulting sacred values".

According to Iranian human rights activists, he was taken to the prison clinic on the morning of 8 March this year in critical condition. According to Safayi's doctor, Hessam Firouzi, "[He] was deeply depressed and prison conditions would have been unbearable for him." The physician added, "The prison doctors were even reluctant to have blood pressure and basic medical tests done. Everything was done because of my persistence at every step of the way"

Iranian officials have not commented on the case.

Target Iran? This Week's US-Israeli Talks

Related Post: That Obama “Review/Muddle” on Iran

The visit to the US by Israel's top military commander, Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi (pictured), which we noted a few days ago, has received no attention in the mainstream press. There are a couple of teasing indications on the Internet, however, of where the talks may be going.

Iran's Press TV, in the midst of an over-wrought (and misleading) story that "U.S., Israel on the same page on Iran timeline", offers this revelation:

Within days of Mullen's pronouncement of close Israel-U.S. cooperation, his Israeli counterpart, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, was putting it to the test in Washington meetings with Gen. James Jones, President Obama's national security adviser, top Pentagon brass and Dennis Ross, who shapes Iran policy at the State Department.

Subtle differences in the Hebrew and English official accounts of Ashkenazi's meetings were telling.

"Throughout the day, the Chief of Staff met with the National Security Adviser, Gen. James Jones, with whom he discussed professional matters such as Iran's nuclear plans, the security situation along Israel's northern border, weapons smuggling, as well as the situation in the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza Strip after operation 'Cast Lead,' " said the statement put out Monday by Israel for the foreign media.

The Hebrew statement, put out by Israel for domestic consumption, said Iran was the "foremost" issue that Ashkenazi discussed.

I suspect the differences in the two statements are not just presentation. This suggests that US officials are continuing to emphasize that Iran has to be approached as part of a regional evaluation which considers the next steps on the Israel-Palestine situation. So, while Tel Aviv might be pressing for an Iran-first approach --- strengthened sanctions and possibly military action --- Washington will not be "on the same page".

Other reports have suggested that Ashkenazi's failure to see US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a further snub to Israel. I'm doubtful about this, as James Jones, heading the National Security Council, would be setting out the US inter-departmental view, and Ashkenazi is also seeing the key State Department official, Dennis Ross.

Instead this report, again from Press TV, is telling if true:

Ashkenazi reportedly outlined for Ross contingencies under which Israel could attack Iran, reiterating it was not on the table for now. Coincidentally, a paper from the [US] Center for Strategic and International Studies published this week said that such an attack was doable, if difficult, both through an air attack and by long-range missiles.

The report, by Abdullah Toukan, said that such an attack would "give rise to regional instability and conflict as well as terrorism."

Such a consequence clearly worried Mullen, too, even though it is not on the immediate horizon.

“What I worry about in terms of an attack on Iran is in addition to the immediate effect, the effect of the attack -- it’s the unintended consequences. It’s the further destabilization in the region," Mullen said. "It’s how they would respond. We have lots of Americans who live in that region who are under the threat envelope right now."

In short, Ashkenazi may have put Israel's case for a focus on Tehran ahead of other Middle Eastern issues but, with the Israeli Government in transition, the immediate approach is not going to be military. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration continues to be in what one might politely call "a review phase" and less politely call "a muddle" over its next steps on Iran.