A "Normal" Middle East: US Presses for Arab Steps on Israel

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

The Jerusalem Post reports that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, working on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meetings, urged senior officials from Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to take steps toward normalizing relations with Israel. She later told reporters that talks were "extremely productive."

While Arab nations still insist on an Israeli settlement freeze before gestures such as the opening of trade and commercial offices, permission for Israeli overflights, and academic and cultural exchanges; Washington is increasing its pressure. Jeffrey Feltman, the top US diplomat for the Middle East, said after Clinton's meeting:

We don't want to wait for the perfect package. It's time to start negotiations now... We hope that the Arabs would find ways to demonstrate to the Israeli public that Israel will be an accepted, normalized part of the region.

Still, progress is still far from assured. The State Department's press release did not mention any "extremely productive" outcome, balancing calls for the re-launching of Israeli-Palestnians negotiations without preconditions with the vision of a freeze on settlements to foster a viable Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders:

The Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and the United States met today in New York City to coordinate on efforts to promote their shared vision of a stable, peaceful and prosperous Middle East, and to intensify their consultations as partners and friends.

The Ministers welcomed the trilateral meeting among President Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and President Abbas on September 22, and expressed their hope for rapid progress towards the resumption of negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Ministers welcomed President Obama’s important statement before the UN General Assembly which calls for the re-launching of negotiations – without preconditions – that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. The Ministers reiterated their call for a freeze on settlement activities. They expressed their continued support for an independent, viable, and democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel, with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, the Road Map, and the Arab Peace Initiative. They reiterated their full support for the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian government led by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and their efforts to build the institutions of a future state. The Ministers also reiterated their support for achieving a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

Analysis: 'New' Washington Consensus on Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process!

The tripartite meeting between Israeli, Palestinian, and American delegations took place in New York on Tuesday, with the leaders of the three groups participating. This was the picture which signals a shift in the US apparoach towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict , from a step-by-step Road Map to an edited Washington version of a 2002 Saudi initiative based on wider issues and a regional context.

Yet Washington's "middle way" between the demands of Palestinians and Israelis is not new. The steps taken in the Obama Administration's Middle East foreign policy since last January were supposed to be clearer when the leaders of Israelis and Palestinians shook hands on Tuesday. But even this picture is incomplete, since the failure to include regional actors such as Syria, Iran, Lebanon and Iraq will undermine any effort on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

According to Washington, the final status agreement must come with continuing negotiations on other issues, especially on the Israeli halt of settlements in the West Bank. The formula is clear: the reassurance of the Palestinian side with the promised withdrawal of Israelis to pre-1967 war borders while reducing pressure on the Israeli side by moving the discourse of “total settlement freeze” to that of “restraining settlements activity” as the Israeli concede a nine-month freeze.



On Tuesday, U.S. President met with the Israeli delegation at first. Then, he talked to the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and his aides. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, National Security Council head Uzi Arad, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mitchell took part in the earlier bilateral Israeli-American meeting. At the end, the tripartite meeting finally was displayed.

"Permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon. And more importantly, we must give those negotiations the opportunity to succeed," Obama said and added:

It is past time to talk about starting negotiations; it is time to move forward. It is time to show flexibility and common sense and sense of compromise that is necessary to achieve our goals... Leaders in the Middle East could not continue 'the same patterns, taking tentative steps forward, then taking steps back.'

For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel achieved what it had wanted after the tripartite meeting. He said to reporters in New York:

There was general agreement, including on the part of the Palestinians, that the peace process has to be resumed as soon as possible with no preconditions... We had two good meetings, even very good, I would say – one with President Obama and his team and later with the Palestinian team. Although the importance of the meeting is in its existence, it was an ice-breaking meeting between people who have not worked with each other for months. It provides a possibility to change things in the future.

However, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was not as “positive” as his premier. He actually saw eye to eye with Abbas and said that "although the Palestinian side is saying it has no preconditions, it has all kinds of demands for moves in the West Bank." On the other hand, Netanyahu kept calm and came closer to Obama's diplomatic stance. He said:

They can raise the Jerusalem issue and we'll present our stance... In the joint meeting with Abu Mazen (Abbas) I told him that 'there is no use in insisting on these matters. Let's move forward.'

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas did not mention Netanyahu's 'talks without any preconditions' and reiterated that Israel had to leave all occupied lands and stop construction in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. He said:

In today's meetings we confirmed our positions and commitment to the road map and its implementation. We also demanded that the Israeli side fulfill its commitments on settlements, including on natural growth.

As for resuming talks, this depends on a definition of the negotiating process that means basing them on recognizing the need to withdraw to the 1967 borders and ending the occupation, as was discussed with the previous Israeli government when we defined the occupied territories as the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem.

This was reiterated in the talks with President Obama and in the trilateral talks. We believe the American administration will review the positions of the two sides in the coming weeks to make it possible for us to renew peace talks based on our stated position.

At the end of the tripartite meeting, we can say that the political discourses of each disputed party has not changed. For Israel, the following negotiations will continue without any Palestinian pre-conditions and for Palestinians, there will be no agreement without the withdrawal of Israeli existence and without a full halt to settlement construction. Lastly, and more importantly, for the Obama Administration, the process is likely to be a middle way: Guaranteeing Palestinians the full withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from the occupied lands and the Israeli halt to settlement freeze under Israeli authorization in the course of time; all of which to be mentioned in the final status agreement whereas confirming Israeli temporary freeze in settlements which is to come closer to a total halt in the course of time in return of Arab concessions in the name of normalization with Israel. So, all parties look like they have taken from the meeting now.

George Mitchell's answer to a question on whether the Obama Administration had skipped the settlement freeze focus and moved straight to final status issue tipped off the US position:

We have always made clear that they are means to an end, the end being the re-launching of negotiations on permanent status in a context in which there is a reasonable prospect for a successful conclusion to those negotiations... So there is absolutely no change in our focus.

However, this new version of Saudi Initiative in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is just a part of the Obama Administration's policy in the region. This middle-way solution can only work with new developments in US and Israeli relations with Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. The follow-up period, so sensitive to any regional development, is more significant than the plans of the Obama Administration on paper. Therefore, right after the tripartite meeting, Obama said he is watching the process closely and the U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell would meet with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators next week, adding that he had asked his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, to report back to him on the status of the talks in October. For now, the Obama Administration has consolidated its position vis-a-vis Palestinians and Israelis. But, that is only for now....

Brzezinski: Grand Strategy and Shooting Down Israel's Jets Over Iraq

In an interview with the Daily Beast's Gerald Posner, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, said on Sunday that President Obama's scrapping missile defense was the right thing to do. The George W. Bush Administration's defense missile shield project had been based on "a nonexistent defense technology, designed against a nonexistent threat".

This, however, become an irrelevance next to Brzezinski's more provocative assertion: Washington has to shoot down Israeli jets over Iraqi airspace if they are en route to attack Iran. This would be an example of US assertiveness to ensure the success of engagement with Tehran and Middle Eastern states. It would be a marker of a "strong strategy" backed-up with decisiveness, lacking in US foreign policy.

Transcript:

Is the Obama administration decision to end the missile-defense program the right one?

Well, let me first of all say that my view on this subject for the last two years has been that the Bush missile-shield proposal was based on a nonexistent defense technology, designed against a nonexistent threat, and designed to protect West Europeans, who weren’t asking for the protection.

Does scrapping the missile program weaken our defense options in Europe vis-à-vis the Russians?

Not at all. What is left is militarily sounder. It gives the U.S. more options while still enhancing America’s ability to develop more effective defense systems, which is what the Russians really dislike. But now they have less of an excuse to bitch about it.

What about the way we informed our allies of our decision?

The way it was conveyed to the Czechs and Poles could not have been worse. It involved [laughs] waking up the Czech prime minster after midnight with a sudden phone call from President Obama. The Polish prime minister was at least allowed to sleep late. But as far as Poland was concerned, unfortunately, poor staff work did not alert the United States that today, September 17, is a particularly painful anniversary for Poland. In 1939, the Poles were still fighting the Germans when on September 17 the Russians stabbed them in the back. To the Poles, that is something very painful. And since they misconstrued—and I emphasize the word “misconstrue”—that the missile shield somehow strengthened their relationship with the U.S. when it comes to Russia, it was immediately suggestive of the notion of a sellout. It’s the wrong conclusion, but in politics, even wrong conclusions have to be anticipated.

How is it possible that the State Department did not bring up the sensitivity of this day to the Poles?

Lousy staff work. Period. I don’t know who precisely to point the finger at. It was obviously not anticipated in this case.

There are some pundits who believe that by abandoning the missile-defense program, we will gain the help of Russia when it comes to arm-twisting Iran over its nuclear weapons program. Anything to that?

I doubt it. The Russians have their own interests in Iran, which are far more complex than the simplistic notion that the Russians want to help us with Iran. The Russians have a complicated agenda with Iran. They also know in the back of their heads that if worse came to worse—and I am not saying they are deliberately promoting the worst—but if worse came to worse, which is an American-Iranian military collision, who would pay the highest price for that? First, America, whose success in ending the Cold War the Russians still bitterly resent. And we would also pay a high price in Iraq, Afghanistan, and massively so with regards to the price of oil. Second, who would suffer the most? The Chinese, who the Russians view as a long-range threat and of whom they are very envious, because the Chinese get much more of their oil from the Middle East than we do, and the skyrocketing price would hurt them even more than us. Third, who would then be totally dependent on the Russians? The West Europeans. And fourth, who would cash in like crazy? The Kremlin.

Is the fallout as bad if Israel preemptively strikes Iran?

Absolutely. That is the way, more importantly, how the Iranians would view it. They really can’t do much to the Israelis, despite all their bluster. The only thing they can do is unify themselves, especially nationalistically, to rally against us, and the mullahs might even think of it as a blessing.

How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?

We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

What if they fly over anyway?

Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse. [Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty in international waters, off the Sinai Peninsula, during the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel later claimed the ship was the object of friendly fire.]

Did it surprise you that it took the Obama administration so long to do away with the missile-defense program? Is he setting firm lines that can’t be crossed, such as with Iran and Israel?

Well, Obama has been very impressive in refining our policy toward the world on a lot of issues, very impressive. But he has been relatively much less impressive in the follow-through.

You mean his policy sounds ideal but the follow-up isn’t good?

Not as precise, clear-cut, and forthcoming as would be desirable.

What would you like have seen already from this administration?

By now we should have been able to formulate a clearer posture on what we are prepared to do to promote a Palestinian-Israeli peace. Simply giving a frequent-traveler ticket to George Mitchell is not the same thing as policy. It took a long time to get going on Iran, but there is an excuse there, the Iranian domestic mess. And we are now eight months into the administration, and I would have thought by now we could have formulated a strategy that we would have considered “our” strategy for dealing with Iran and Pakistan. For example, the Carter administration, which is sometimes mocked, by now had in motion a policy of disarmament with the Russians, which the Russians didn’t like, but eventually bought; it had started a policy of normalization with the Chinese; it rammed through the Panama Canal treaty; and it was moving very, very openly toward an Israeli-Arab political peace initiative.

Where did the impetus come from in the Carter administration, and why aren’t we seeing it with Obama?

There was a closer connection between desire and execution. Also the president was not as deeply embroiled, and buffeted, by a very broad, and commendable and ambitious domestic program as President Obama is. I think the Republican onslaught to the president, the wavering of some Democrats, has vastly complicated not only his choices in foreign affairs, but even limited the amount of attention he can give to them.

Is there truth that the more issues he is embroiled in, the less he can act?

I don’t think it’s the number of issues; it’s how decisively a president acts. A president, in his first year, is at the peak of his popularity, and if he acts decisively, even if some oppose him, most will rally around him, out of patriotism, out of opportunism, out of loyalty, out of the crowd instinct, just a variety of human motives.

Some in the Obama administration have told me that it’s only just over half a year, and we are jumping to too early conclusions about anything. Are the early months more critical than other times in an administration?

The first year is decisive. How much you can set in motion the first year sets the tone for much of the rest of the term. In part, that’s because all these things take more than one year to complete. But the point is you want to have a dynamic start that carries momentum with it.

President Carter early on ran into strong opposition from American-based pro-Israeli lobbying groups that opposed the administration’s ideas for a peace initiative in the Middle East. What lesson should the Obama administration learn in formulating its own approach to an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue?

The lesson is if you are forthright in what you are seeking, you tend to mobilize support within the Jewish community. Because a majority of American Jews are liberal, and in the long run they know that peace in the Middle East is absolutely essential to Israel’s long-term survival.

Are you concerned about Afghanistan?

Quite unintentionally, but potentially and tragically, we are sliding into a posture which is beginning—and I emphasize the word “beginning”—to be reminiscent of what happened to the Soviets.

We have plenty of time to reverse course?

There is some time to reverse course. But time flies.

Transcript/Snap Analysis: Washington's Welcome to Iran

Iran’s Nukes: Full Text of Iran’s Proposal to “5+1″ Powers

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Here's a surprise. Despite the hostility shown in the Western media towards Iran's latest proposal on its nuclear programme, notably over Tehran's negative response to the international demand to halt its nuclear enrichment programme, the State Department said Friday that the United States and the other members of the "5+1" group (Germany, China, Russia, Britain, and France) had accepted Iran's proposal to hold direct talks. Moreover, Tehran's signals of cooperation on issues such as the stability of Afghanistan and Iraq and the struggle against terrorism are appreciated by Washington.



Here is Friday's daily press briefing on Iran given by State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley:

Political directors of P-5+1 continue to study Iran document

Statement issued by Javier Solana on P-5+1 countries to arrange a face-to-face meeting

Iran paper does not reply to international community's concerns; it does not cover nuclear issue / need an early meeting to see if Iran is willing to engage seriously on these issues

We feel that they are out of compliance with their obligations under the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty], IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], Security Council resolutions/wish to have direct dialogue with Iran to see what Iran is prepared to do/5+1 countries want to have face-to-face with Iran to address all the issues that we have concerns about, including the nuclear issue.

We have great concern about Iran's support of terrorism and its role in the region/recognize that we have potentially common interests in terms of a stable Afghanistan; and a stable Iraq; willing to engage Iran on the full range of issues

Iranian election is a matter between the Iranian government and its people

Hence, despite pressure on Washington to allow an Israeli strike on Tehran and claims that the US will press for harsher sanctions, it appears that the Obama Administration is maneuvering towards an expansion of engagement. If this is the case, the next Security Council meeting on September 24 can produce an unexpected consensus with a green light for direct dialogue with Iran. Indeed, when the full transcript is read carefully, it emerges that Washington's signal for negotiations is based on wider political concerns rather than as a specific answer to Iran's nuclear proposals. As Crowley states, the only condition  is that Iran expresses its willingness to talk:

Transcript

QUESTION: On Iran? A question on Iran?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Regarding the proposal the Iranians made this week, you said yesterday – and your comments yesterday seemed to be focused on the fact that they didn’t address the central – the issue of central interest to the U.S., which is the nuclear program, enrichment activity. I’m wondering if, nonetheless, the P-5+1 countries have decided that they will tell the Iranians that they accept the offer to have talks.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I would kind of bother to turn that around, first and foremost, and recall that it was the nations of the P-5+1 who made a specific offer to Iran to engage directly to address the concerns that the United States has, the international community has, the United Nations Security Council has. So it is Iran providing a paper that responds in a way to the invitation. There was a conference call this morning of the political directors of the P-5+1, and I think we continue to study the Iran document. At the same time, I believe brief – a short time ago, there was a statement made by the EU, by Javier Solana, indicating that he will be in touch with the Iranians on behalf of the P-5+1 countries to arrange a face-to-face meeting as soon as possible.

QUESTION: Just on the one-on-one –

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: The face-to-face meeting – him and – or all the P-5 --

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, the P-5+1 was put in place to provide a mechanism to address the concerns that the international community has about Iran’s nuclear program. And, clearly, the Iranian paper does not reply to these concerns. It does not cover the nuclear issue. That’s precisely why we think we need an early meeting. We’re not interested in talking for talking’s sake. We’re looking to see – and through an early meeting, should Iran be willing, we’ll be looking to see if they are willing to engage seriously on these issues, but within the context of the P-5+1, the full range of issues that we have among these countries and Iran.

QUESTION: So you’re talking about talks about talks? Because I mean --

MR. CROWLEY: We’re not interested in talks about talks.

QUESTION: Well, okay, but that’s --

MR. CROWLEY: We’re interested in finding out if – I mean, if you go to the Iran document, it says the Iranian nation is prepared to enter into dialogue and negotiation, and so on and so forth. We are going to – as Javier Solana has indicated, we will seek an early meeting and we will seek to test Iran’s willingness to engage. Clearly, from the standpoint of the international community, the central issue that we have is the nuclear issue. If we have talks, we will plan to bring up the nuclear issue. We will hope, as we said earlier this week in the IAEA, that Iran will choose to engage the international community to address the concerns that we have about the nuclear program. So we are seeking a meeting because, ultimately, the only way that we feel we’re going to be able to resolve these issues is to have a meeting. But it’s not just a meeting for meeting’s sake. It is a meeting to be able to see if Iran is willing to engage seriously on these issues.

QUESTION: But they just sent you this response to your offer. You offered them talks on the nuclear issue and other issues. They came back to you and said we’re willing to talk, but not about our nuclear program. So what’s the point of talking to them if you got your response – I mean, then how can you say these are not talks about talks? I mean, they’ve shown you through their official paper their willingness to engage on the nuclear issue, which is not to engage on the nuclear issue. So why would you want to have talks with them if it didn’t? And are you saying that you would sit down with Iran to talk about whether they’re willing to engage on the nuclear issue, or are you not going to sit across the table from Iran unless the nuclear issue is on the table?

MR. CROWLEY: We would expect, if we have a meeting with Iran, that it will be a – we would hope that it would be a substantive exchange. We will go into such a meeting, should Iran agree to prepare to talk about the substance of the issues and concerns that we have on Iran’s nuclear program, as was outlined this week at the IAEA. We feel that they are out of compliance with their obligations under the NPT, IAEA, Security Council resolutions. We wish to have a direct dialogue with Iran. We believe, and the President has said repeatedly, that we feel this is the way in which we will be able to, and hopefully can, resolve these issues. Our objective is clear: to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. I don’t think that we can resolve this issue any other way but through the kind of direct dialogue --

QUESTION: But what in that --

MR. CROWLEY: -- that leads to negotiation that we hope will lead to an understanding --

QUESTION: But what in that letter – you said we expect that there’ll be substantive talks. What gives you that expectation?

MR. CROWLEY: Well --

QUESTION: What in that letter gives you any reason to believe that you would have substantive talks with Iran about its nuclear issue?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, and that’s why we will seek a meeting to see what is – Iran is prepared to do. We’ve been waiting for some months --

QUESTION: So you’re ignoring their letter?

MR. CROWLEY: We have been waiting for some months for Iran to respond to the – to Javier Solana’s invitation earlier this year. We are seeking a meeting now based on the Iranian paper to see what Iran is prepared to do. And then, as the President has said, if Iran responds to our interest in a meeting, we’ll see when that can occur. We hope that will occur as soon as possible, and that as we head towards United Nations General Assembly, I expect there will be further meetings within the P-5+1. As the President has said, we will use this month to assess where we are in terms of our offer of engagement, and then that would lead to a conclusion by the end of the year as to what that approach has yielded.

So I don’t – we’ve gone through this situation where there have been various public statements over the past few weeks. But ultimately, the only way we’re going to resolve the serious and – concerns that we have is to have direct dialogue, see if Iran is willing to engage on these issues. If they’re not, then, obviously, that will – we’ll draw conclusions from that.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, it seems that you think the door is still open to talks on the enrichment because they didn’t explicitly refuse in the letter to talk about that subject.

MR. CROWLEY: Well --

QUESTION: Is that correct?

MR. CROWLEY: -- all I can say is our position has not changed. The United States, the other members of the P5+1 – we seek engagement with Iran, we seek to have better answers, better information, better cooperation from Iran to seriously address the issues that we have. And now it is up to Iran to determine what they are prepared to do. They have given – they’ve provided a paper. It says that they are open to dialogue. The paper itself does not address our nuclear concerns. But we will seek a meeting, as Javier Solana indicated today. And then based on that approach, we’ll see if Iran is willing to have a meeting. At that meeting, we will hope that there will be serious engagement. From that engagement, we hope there will be a willingness to address these issues. And then – but through this process, we’ll be able to determine what Iran is prepared to do, what it’s not prepared to do, and that will lead us to make judgments and there will be consequences going forward.

QUESTION: Let me put it another way. I mean, the paper, the proposals – are they better than their public statements where they refuse strictly to discuss engagement – enrichment?

MR. CROWLEY: The paper itself, I don’t think, broke any new ground. It’s, in a way, a warmed-over version of a previous paper they provided some time ago.

QUESTION: So, P.J., why wouldn’t you just see that as stalling then? I mean, the Iranians for the last several years have done this. You get right up to the deadline and then they put these papers out, then you say, okay, we’re going to go talk to them again, and it just keeps going and going down the road.

MR. CROWLEY: Well – and we will draw conclusions based on how Iran responds to the invitation by Javier Solana and the EU.

QUESTION: And their past behavior hasn’t given you any indication?

MR. CROWLEY: And we will draw conclusions if their past behavior – or their future behavior reflects their past behavior.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, but I still don’t understand – and I think probably most of us don’t – that you say that you’re going to ask Iran for talks based on their response --

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: – based on this letter that they sent you.

MR. CROWLEY: No, no, no, no, no. We are – once again, we are making the offer of – for direct dialogue to Iran. It is a consistent approach that --

QUESTION: You made that offer, and they said we’re willing to talk to you about everything that we want to talk to you about and nothing that you want to talk to – about. So why are you – are you, like, ignoring this letter or ignoring the contents, or saying the fact that they sent us anything is a good sign and we’ll see if we could build something on that? Because if you’re saying that we’re asking them for talks based on this piece of paper that they sent you, I don’t see where there’s anything to talk about.

MR. CROWLEY: Well – and we seek direct negotiations. We want to see Iran sit down face to face with the P-5+1 countries and address all of the issues that we have concern about, including the nuclear issue. If we have a meeting, we’re going to bring up the nuclear issue, and we’ll see how Iran responds to that. And this is – this is --

QUESTION: But what – but what about this – I’m sorry, but what about this letter makes you think that they’re willing to talk to you about that? They said no thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: And we’ll find out. We’ll find out. But I – again, I go back --

QUESTION: Why aren’t you taking no for an answer, though?

MR. CROWLEY: Libby, I – Elise, I go back to the – there’s language in the letter that simply says the Government of Iran is willing to enter in a dialogue. We are going to test that proposition. Okay? And if Iran is willing to enter into serious negotiations, then they will find a willing participant in the United States and the other P-5+1 countries. If the – Iran dissembles in the future, as it has in the past, then we will draw conclusions from that.

Recall, we have a two-track strategy here. We are willing to engage, but we are also going to continue to look for ways to pressure Iran to change the path that it’s on. And we are willing to do both of those simultaneously. But ultimately, because these are serious issues, because we have a strategy that will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, we feel the only way you’re ultimately going to resolve these issues is through direct dialogue. We recognize that Iran may or may not be willing to do so.

And as the President said, we’re going to assess where we are during the course of this month, including meetings that we’ll have at the UN General Assembly. And then at the end of the year, we’ll be able to draw some conclusions as to how successful our engagement offer has been.

QUESTION: P.J., can I follow up on that?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Isn’t your second track in trouble, though? I mean, you’ve got the Russian foreign minister out there saying yesterday that new sanctions shouldn’t be considered, especially anything on petroleum. That’s the same thing the Russians have been saying since this process got underway back in 2003. It just seems – how are you going to implement the second track?

MR. CROWLEY: These are not mutually exclusive. I’ll let the Russian foreign minister characterize his own words. There is unanimity within the P-5+1 in support of our two-track approach that involves engagement and pressure. Now – and we are willing to meet with Iran. We hope to meet with Iran. We want to see serious engagement on the nuclear issue, in particular. Within the context of the P-5+1, we are willing to address any other issues that they want to bring to the table. But clearly, if Iran refuses to negotiate seriously, we the United States and the international community and the Security Council can draw conclusions from that. And then based on that, we’ll make some judgments in the future.

QUESTION: P.J. --

QUESTION: I’m sorry, a quick procedural question since the announcement happened while we were in here. What level would the talks be on? Is that – the Solana announcement, what level of talks would take place with Iran? Is it political directors?

MR. CROWLEY: I would say likely at the political director level. But again, that will be part of what will be negotiated, depending on what Iran’s response is.

QUESTION: The U.S. will be at the table for that, or would it be only Solana? I’m trying to understand.

MR. CROWLEY: Oh, no. I would expect – I mean, we would seek a meeting –

QUESTION: At the initial meeting here --

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: – that Solana is requesting, would it be with all six parties plus him?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, as he indicated in his statement, Javier Solana will be in touch with Iranian authorities, look for a meeting at an early date. And then we’ll work those details based on the Iranian response.

QUESTION: So you’re not closed to being at an initial meeting, as opposed to the follow-up meeting?

MR. CROWLEY: But I would – I think we would hope that there’d be a full P-5+1 meeting at a senior level. We’ll be looking, for example, to see from the Iranian standpoint, should this happen, what level of interlocutor will they send, what kind of authority will that person have. But we’re looking for a serious engagement by Iran, address these issues that we have. If it’s there, that will be a positive development. If it’s not there, we’ll draw conclusions from that.

QUESTION: Does that –

MR. CROWLEY: Go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: So, basically, this is probably a last chance for Iran to engage on its nuclear issue, which is sort of a precondition for the talks?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I wouldn’t say – it is a – it is certainly a best opportunity for Iran. As we said at the IAEA earlier this week, we have made an offer to Iran; it’s out of mutual interest and mutual respect. But clearly, we expect to see Iran be willing to address the concerns that we have. As we said earlier this week, Iran says it has rights, but with those rights come responsibilities. So we’ll see what happens. But obviously, should Iran decide to engage, we will be at the table. Should Iran decide not to engage, that will have consequences and we’ll make judgments based on what Iran does or does not do.

QUESTION: Does that include Iran’s views on Israel and also support of terrorism?

MR. CROWLEY: We have great concern about Iran’s support of terrorism and its role in the region. At the same time, we recognize that we have potentially common interests in terms of a stable Afghanistan, in terms of a stable Iraq. As we have said frequently, we are willing to engage Iran on a full range of issues, but obviously, first on our list, first on the international community’s list, is Iran’s nuclear program.

QUESTION: And their views on Israel – wipe out Israel off the world map?

MR. CROWLEY: Obviously, that is a repugnant statement from the United States[1]. And we – but we are willing to – we have great concerns about Iran’s role in the region. It has been – hardly been a constructive player, and we will be clearly prepared to talk about that.

QUESTION: Can you take another one on Iran from another angle? Every year at the end of the month of Ramadan, the Iranian regime has begun this demonstration in support of the Palestinians. It’s coming up. It’s next week, actually. And today, Khamenei threatened the opposition that if they use that demonstration to voice their own displeasure with the results of the presidential elections that they would be faced with a harsh response and full force and everything.

Could that play – this recent comment play – have any room to play in your decision on the talks in general?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, as we have said many, many times, the situation in the aftermath of the election is really a matter between the Iranian Government and its people. Clearly, there are many within the political structure, within the clerical structure, that want to see a broader political process, a genuine political process, the formation of a genuine political opposition. And clearly, the regime is determined, and has taken direct actions, to inhibit that from happening both in terms of the arrest of those who have expressed their views publicly of intention and inhibitions given to journalists, and so on and so forth. And obviously, this continues to roil within Iran.

I think it’s not for us to give the Iranian regime advice, other than they should continue to take actions, or should start to take actions, to meet the genuine aspirations of their people.

QUESTION: Well, in that proposal they mentioned that they respect the right of people for free – to have free elections, and they talk about justice and rule of law and --

MR. CROWLEY: I think we would say that actions speak more loudly than words. And clearly, their activities of the past few weeks hardly show a government that is interested in having a free and fair and open political process.

Iran Document: Ahmadinejad's Aide on Economics, Politics, & Nuclear Discussions

The Latest from Iran (11 September): Prayers and Politics

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

The Washington Post carries an interview with Iran's Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi, a top aide to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in which he talks about Iran's proposal on its nuclear programme to the "5+1" powers and challenges the understanding of the liberal democracy in the West.

Hashemi talked about a three-fold Iranian response to the west: economic cooperation, political engagement, and revision of international arrangements. The economic approach focuses on cooperation in the energy sector while the political engagement seeks the improvement of the situation in Afghanistan and cooperation to stop smuggling, narcotics, and terrorism. On uranium enrichment , Iran is proposing a systemic revision to eliminate all current nuclear weapons and to prevent the proliferation of these weapons.

The first response to this initiative came from Russia, where the Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday that Iran's proposals contained something that powers "could work with".

Transcript:

Q: What are the contents of the proposal given by Iran to the permanent members of the Security Council and Germany?

A: In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful, I thank you for this chance to speak. We are currently in the holy month of Ramadan and also commemorate the nights of Qadr.

One of the specialties of these nights for our nation is that they belong to the first imam, Ali. When his name is mentioned, the first thing that comes to mind is his commitment to justice. He has been quoted as saying that "if you offer me the whole world, but ask me to take a grain from the mouth of an ant with oppression, I will not accept."

A famous historian says about Imam Ali (peace be upon him): "He was killed while leading prayers, because of the greatness of his justice."

The Iranian nation follows such an imam. Not only Muslims, but all of humanity pride themselves that such a human existed. I say these things as a prologue to the answer to your question.

The package that the Islamic Republic of Iran has proposed, I will point out some of the generalities of the package.

This package speaks at least about three fields: one economic, one political and the third international issues.

In the economic subject, there are widespread opportunities for cooperation between the Islamic Republic of Iran and different countries, including European nations and the members of the 5-plus-1. Especially you know that Western nations are generally heavily affected by the international economic crisis, while the Islamic Republic has been affected much less. So much so that even according to international organizations and observers, the Iranian stock market is among the best in the world.

Q: Can you give me some more examples?

A: Especially in the field of energy, providing energy, there are many opportunities for cooperation. The other subject of the package is political cooperation.

It pays attention to peace, regional and international security, fighting narcotics smuggling, cooperation in fighting terrorism, in fighting organized crime. International cooperation can also be formed in this subject.

Q: What are the details of this subject of paying attention to peace and international security?

A: For instance, one of the crisis-ridden regions of the world is our neighbor Afghanistan. In spite of the increased presence of allied forces in that country, peace and security have not increased. At this point there are over 100,000 [foreign troops] in Afghanistan, while we see that the area of control of the central government has not increased. And the security of citizens is threatened even more. There have been demonstrations by people in Kabul and in other Afghan cities against the presence of foreign forces.

Apart from that, drug smuggling has strongly increased. Events inside Afghanistan have a wide range of regional and international effects. Some of the narcotics produced in Afghanistan are shipped to Europe, and Iran is paying a very high price in fighting smugglers. Apart from these, the infrastructure in that country has not been rebuilt or developed. Today a large number of Afghans are living unemployed and in poverty. This might be one of the main reasons behind the increased production of narcotics.

This is a subject that, with the participation of the legal Afghan government, can be focused on by everyone, and Iran can play its constructive role there. This can be a subject for discussions and cooperation.

We should all help the government of Afghanistan to be able to rule all over Afghanistan. We should all make sure that only useful and productive crops substitute for narcotics. We should all help to rebuild Afghanistan.

This is a good example on interaction, negotiations and speaking together, and all will benefit from it: the people, government and neighbors of Afghanistan, and also the region and the West.

This is just an example. There are many, many other examples where cooperation is possible.

Q: Is there any mention in the proposal of suspending uranium enrichment, a key demand in three rounds of United Nations sanctions?

A: The methods of preventing development of nuclear weapons and a widespread system for preventing the multiplying and the proliferation of nuclear weapons are a part of the package.

Since nuclear weapons are an international threat, with the cooperation of all countries we can design an international framework that, basically, prevents research, production, multiplying and keeping nuclear weapons and also moves toward destruction of present nuclear weapons.

Iran is ready in this path to offer any and every kind of cooperation and effort. No country must be exempt from this international framework against nuclear weapons.

Q: So you are confirming that Iran has no plans to give up uranium enrichment in the proposed package?

A: It's very obvious that all the nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran until now, and from now on, were within the framework of the laws of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and agreements and contracts made with the International Atomic Energy Agency and their rules and conventions.

And it is also very obvious that legal and lawful activities are the right of every nation.

Q: So in the proposal you suggest this international framework against nuclear weapons in order to also remove doubts that Iran is making such weapons?

A: Since today the threat of nuclear weapons comes from countries that have them, and to be secure and safe from future activities of countries that in the future will join the nuclear club, this framework must be widely be implemented from now on.

Q: So that we don't have any misunderstandings about your words, this doesn't mean that you are planning to make a nuclear weapon, but an international system in which no one will be allowed to make nuclear weapons?

A: Iran not only does not want to make nuclear weapons, but is actually intensely against nuclear weapons. In all truth, Iran is trying to establish a new regime to prevent nuclear weapons worldwide, which are an international anxiety.

Q: "The U.S. representative in the International Atomic Energy Agency said on Wednesday that Iran has enough low-enriched material to make one nuclear bomb. What is your reaction?

A: These are not the words of the Americans. This is the Israelis speaking. It's better that the Americans give their own opinion.

Q: Iran has been saying that it is waiting for change from the U.S. What is your stance on the Obama administration?

A: For Iran, the paradoxical statements by American politicians have been strange. This shows that apparently there is no central decision-making unit in the American government. Of course, the Obama government is under intense pressure from the Zionist lobby [to pressure Iran], but ultimately the Obama administration has been elected by the American people, and everybody expects their decisions to be based upon the interest of the American people.

Until now we have only seen words from the American government, but there have been no actions taken. Iran sent a message of congratulations after Obama's election victory. Iran said that within the framework of justice and international respect we are ready to interact with America. We even gave practical proposals to the American government in the past.

Q: Like what?

A: For instance, just as a step we asked for direct flights between Tehran and New York, but the Americans gave no response. This would have been the smallest step. With such an atmosphere, how can we count on their claims that they are ready for negotiations or a rebuilding of relations with Iran?

One point that is very important for Iran is the interference of some elements of the American government in Iran's election and especially some of the American media, in directing and intensifying street unrest in Tehran. They had an important role.

Q: Who are you talking about? Hillary Clinton? U.S. media? Iran makes many of these claims.

A: Both of them. I think they know it very well. For example, one of them is VOA [Voice of America - Persian Service]. Both radio and TV.

With all of these ups and downs, still the road is not closed. Ultimately, if there are going to be interactions or relations, there should be really some practical, positive signs.

Q: Can you give me some practical signs that you would like to see from United States?

A: Maybe one of them could be apologizing for their interfering in Iran's election and other instances of meddling, which are not few.

Q: The supreme leader in his speech during the [Persian] new year holidays in Mashhad referred to a letter supposedly sent by Obama. Recently we have heard of a second letter sent by Mr. Obama. What was in this letter and why did he send the letter to the supreme leader and not to the president?"

A: I postpone the answer of this question to the future. Let's respond later.

Q: So the letters have been sent by Mr. Obama?

A: Well, I think I answered you.

Q: Yes, okay, but so you say that two letters have been sent?

A: American sources have said that they have sent those letters.

Q: And how about Iranian sources?

A: I told you, I will answer in the future.

Q: Okay, there has been talk of establishing a U.S. consulate or special interests section [in Tehran]? Do you see at this point in time any chance for the opening of such a special interests section?

A: This kind of request is not yet received.

Q: And if the request comes? How will Iran answer?

A: The president has said that if such a request comes, we will study it positively.

Q: Imagine that the U.S. sources are right about the letters. Why would Mr. Obama send the letters to the [supreme leader] and not to the president?"

A: The answer to this question depends on the last question. If they were right about the letters, you have ask this question of them.

Q: I did. They said they want to try approaching the supreme leader because they have a feeling that there is a difference between the government and the supreme leader in their points of view. They think it's better for them to approach him directly.

A: The response to such a question has been given previously by president and the supreme leader in their speeches. The policies of the Islamic Republic are homogenous. When policies are made and chosen, everybody follows them. So there is no difference in the policies of the supreme leader or those of the government.

Of course, the government is the executive power, and it's the government that carries out the policies. Mr. President [Ahmadinejad] is the head of Supreme National Security Council, in fact. The representatives of the supreme leader are also on that council. Therefore, the decisions made in that council are coordinated decisions which are carried out throughout the system and government. Such a difference is just the belief of some American officials.

Q: What if the Western countries turn down the package? What will be Iran's reaction?

A: If they decline the package, it means they don't agree with the development of economic, political and international relations and economic cooperation. That means that they still wish to continue their nuclear policies on building, multiplying and preparation of nuclear weapons and shy away from disarmament. Of course, I don't think this will happen because it's a great opportunity for them.

Q: Ahmadinejad has said that the Western nations are in a gradual downfall and that this is an exceptional chance for the Islamic revolution to present its own theory on how to run the world appropriately. Does this mean that we face a much more active Iranian foreign policy in the coming four years?

A: Yes, you do.

Q: Could you elaborate more on this in practice?

A: The actions today by the West are based on a certain specific philosophy and ideology, which is so-called liberal democracy. Both the internal and external signs of this Western liberal democracy show that it's approaching defeat and collapse.

The opportunity for Westerners to speak their views and to participate in determining their fate is very limited and weak. You see, for example, in the United States there are only two major parties that are active in politics. If somebody is not affiliated with either of these parties, he won't be able to reach high positions within the government, for example to become president.

Can you find a president of America who won the election without being dependent on one of these parties? The political parties take away the possibility of the presence of original forces in the nation. Power just changes hands between members of two parties.

And if this were the only thing, there would be less criticism.

But unfortunately there are organized groups and parties behind the scenes that force their views even on those two parties.

Not only in the United States; they are only one example. Unfortunately, an important part of politicians in Europe -- not all of them -- who are in parliament or parties, or have the media, are forced to act under the pressure of the Zionist lobby.

They don't have the necessary independence. We received this conception from political negotiations between Iran and many of these politicians. I, myself, have talked with some high-ranking European officials and authorities. When we speak to them about international events and we ask them to take a fair position, they say they are under pressure.

There are many examples. It shows what liberal democracy is today. It's not only in politics. It can be expanded to economics, the media and to international relations. But the present time is not sufficient for such talks now. I'm ready to open this completely for you.

I want to say in summary: justice as the basic principle, of keeping the dignity of human beings, is not paid attention to by those politicians. . . . The interests of special power groups have higher priority than this. [Examples are] what happened in Iraq, like American interference, harsh prisons in Iraq and the U.S.A., injuring and killing people in Iraq and not caring about civilian citizens in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So much so that even the NATO secretary general says that in order to make Afghanistan secure, civilians will be killed

In fact, they divide the world into two groups: first-degree and second-degree humans.

This shows liberal democracy is just a claim and has no essence.

But what we say must happen as a basic principle are a number of things. The first is justice as a general human requirement; it should be one of the first fundamentals of everything. Safeguarding human dignity is another. Kindness and love should be the basis of peace and security. Mutual respect is another principle which must be considered in international relations, in governance, in economic relations, in financial relations and other dimensions.

If you discuss the international economic crisis, a big part of this crisis is rooted in the injustices that exist in the world, which are because of the relations and structures that the great powers have forced onto the world. If these injustices did not exist, this event would not happen.

There are many things that should be changed: the structure of the U.N., structure of the U.N. [Security Council], the work procedure in [the Security Council] and the veto privilege for the permanent members.

All of these show that the present structure ruling the world belongs to 60 years ago and is the result of the Second World War, in which some were victorious and one group lost. At that point, they planned things in such a way so the whole world would always be controlled by themselves. I think the time has come to evaluate these relations and new relations to be created.

Q: What steps will Iran take in order to spread its world view? Will this be some kind of diplomatic offensive?

A: I think that if the present structure and relations are properly explained to the people, and if the media help to clarify the realities and truth for the people with respect to the general request for creating justice in the world and the activities of the political elite, we can reform the present situation.

The request is there; the circumstances are ready. The great powers have no replacement for their present unsuccessful rule. If they had, they would have solved the 60-year problem of Palestine. They would have solved the problems of Afghanistan. They would have solved the problems of regional wars and other international issues. But nothing has been solved in the world. People don't feel secure. They don't even implement international disarmament, while everybody knows that nuclear weapons are a general threat.

I remember a U.S. politician talked about a bomber plane carrying atomic weapons which flew from one airport to another. He said that if something had happened to that plane, a great tragedy would have been created for America.

Even though they know that production and storage of nuclear weapons [are dangerous], they still continue. This shows that they are too irresponsible to run the world. Naturally, everything needs to be changed.

Q: Do we see all of this reflected in the package?

A: Of course, what Iran proposes is based upon international interest, justice, cooperation and mutual respect: principles which are accepted worldwide. All wise and logical people accept this.

Q: So in the U.N., [Ahmadinejad] will announce this diplomatic offensive?

A: It has been like this until now.