US-Iran hot and cold relations
Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal | Wednesday, 30 July 2008
BECAUSE of its sheer military power and arrogance, the US does not hesitate to threaten and invade sovereign countries considered by Washington not falling in line with its global agenda. Hence the US issues threats to them with deadlines to complete a task followed by punitive preemptive aggression for failure to comply with its dictates. Many countries toe the US line but a few still oppose the US agenda under the fictitious garb of "democracy and regime change". Afghanistan and Iraq have paid heavy prices for not toeing the American line and now Iran, under virtual siege of the UNSC-5, is the current target of US neo-imperialism. Iran became a US target for refusing to give up uranium enrichment, it says it will use for peaceful power generation and not for making bombs.
Iran is pursing its legitimate nuclear energy option. The USA, the world's only super power, slapped another two-week ultimatum on Iran to decide between confrontation and co-operation over its uranium enrichment programme.
At talks in Switzerland, Geneva on July 18, envoys from the US, the European Union (EU) and the UN yet again asked Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment in return for a pledge not to introduce new sanctions. In addition to the EU, Iranian and US envoys, the talks in Geneva's city hall were attended by representatives from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. Talks ended with Iran stonewalling Washington and five other world powers on their call to freeze uranium enrichment. The BBC reported Iran is interested in the offer but it is unclear whether there are divisions in the leadership or the Iranians are playing for time. "This package is a new opportunity which should not be lost." But doubt was cast over the value of the talks, after a member of the Iranian delegation said there was "no chance" of a freeze on the uranium-enrichment programme.
But the US says that talks' lack of progress may lead to "further isolation" of Iran. Iran state radio quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying, the talks were "a step ahead." The Western diplomats had hoped that Iran would respond to a so-called "freeze-for-freeze" offer, under which a freeze of Iran's uranium enrichment programme at its current levels would be matched by a Western pledge not to strengthen sanctions on Tehran.
"It was a constructive meeting, but still we didn't get the answer to our questions," EU envoy Xavier Solana told reporters. However, the meeting was the first time the US and Iranian officials met face-to-face on the nuclear issue. Senior US Under-Secretary William Burns presented the US at the Geneva talks. Although he made no public comments, Burns had delivered a "clear simple message" that Washington was "serious" about the incentives package but that it would only negotiate with Iran if it upheld its side of the deal. The US state department spokesman Sean McCormack issued a strongly-worded statement in Washington threatening the Iranian people to understand that their leaders need to make a choice between co-operation, which would bring "benefits to all", and confrontation, which can only lead to "further isolation. Tehran's continued activity is seen in the US as defying UN Security Council demands to halt enrichment.
Any realistic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis would need to involve active US engagement. But there are also plenty of elements in the US and Iranian governing circles who toe a different line. Hoping for a war in the Mideast, some do talk dangerously about the merits of a "limited war", others have even more ambitious military designs.
Israeli military exercises, focusing on Iran, do anger the Iranians, though Iran got used to such tactics and maneuvers by the USA-Israel combine.
Although Iran's latest missile tests have grabbed global headlines, the Western observers may have learned little they did not already know about the scope and potential firepower of Tehran's arsenal. The Iranian missiles have a maximum range of 500km (310 miles).
Saddam Hussein also fired Scud-type missiles at Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, causing limited damage and virtually no loss of life.
More than the US, it is Israel which is puzzled and disturbed by Iranian missile tests. Like the US neocons, the viciously powerful Israeli lobby has been pressing Washington to do something about Iran and immediately.
Iran tested successfully longer-range Shahab-3capable of striking targets in Israel. The longer range modified version Shahab-3, Iran says has a range of up to 2,500km capable of striking targets in the Gulf and Israel.
Analysts suggest that the tests were conducted to send the message that Iran was capable of hitting if attacked It has become a sheer habit of the US to use the UNSC as a rubber stamp to plan economic sanctions against opponents to force them to fall in line. These sanctions against opponents are indeed economic terrorism perpetrated against humanity, because ultimate suffers are the common people. Sanctions have been slapped on Iran before. Still the UNSC is thinking to slap harsher sanctions against Iran.
On July 20, the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of not being serious at the Geneva talks and about its alleged nuclear programme despite the presence of a senior US diplomat. She warned Iran might soon face new sanctions, if Tehran does not respond to a package of incentives offered in exchange for halting uranium enrichment. In her first public comments since the meeting in Switzerland, Rice said all six nations were serious about the two-week deadline by which Iran has to agree to freeze suspect activities and start negotiations or suffer new penalties. Rice slammed Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili for delivering a "meandering" monologue full of irrelevant "small talk about culture" that appeared to annoy many of the other participants at the Geneva meeting. "People are tired of the Iranians and their stalling tactics. It's time for the Iranians to give a serious answer." Rice told reporters aboard her plane as she flew to the United Arab Emirates.
Rice said unless Iran responds positively in the next two weeks, it can expect more sanctions to be imposed by the United States and the European Union as early as late August or September and may then face a fourth sanction from the UNSC.
However, Iranian state radio on July 19 reported that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the talks a "step ahead" and said his country's formal assessment would be given soon. Iran avoided the uranium enrichment "suspension" issue entirely.
Keen to dominate the world, the US and Israel neither gave up their nuclear arms nor stopped research on nuclear technology. But they both want Iran to fall in line. And, once again, Iran gave no guarantees it would halt its enrichment programme. Iran maintains its nuclear facilities are designed to meet its energy needs and denies that it has a weapons programme. Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili said he had put forward many positive ideas and he urged the Western powers not to turn away from the negotiations.
The US and Iran have had no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the taking of US embassy personnel in Tehran as hosts. Formal contact between the two countries has been extremely limited, though last year they met at ambassadorial level to discuss security in Iraq. The meeting came after weeks of rising tension in the Middle East. After the latest Iranian missile tests, Israel and Iran exchanged a series of threats and counter-threats nervously watched in the West. The US wants Tehran to accept the Western proposal soon to freeze its enrichment programme in return for avoiding new sanctions.
The Western and pro-western media always harps on anti-Iranian rhetoric and uses harsh expressions to threaten Iran. These media are also known to goad Israel and the US to go for punitive, preemptive action against Iran. The weapons manufacturers in these countries want to test their latest arms in war situations and showcase the efficacy of their high precision weapons to increase prospects of selling weapons to the hungry nations in the east.
While Solana is delegated to negotiate on the behalf of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, China, Russia, France and Britain, there would always be doubts in Tehran about how much he speaks for the Bush administration.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last week he was interested in direct talks with the US. He also said Iran was interested in an idea being floated in Washington -- to open a US diplomatic mission in Tehran for the first time since 1979. In a television interview, Ahmadinejad said he expected "something may happen soon" in US-Iranian relations. Like Bush, he too did not take the world into confidence to reveal what might be going behind the scene.
Any realistic solution to the Iranian enrichment programme would involve active US engagement at the diplomatic level. Both the sides have made it abundantly clear they want to talk, but neither is very good at listening. In the past Washington and Tehran have been like two star-crossed lovers. Every time one made an advance, the other turned away.
After the July missile tests by Iran, there are growing signs that both Iran and the US want to do some serious talking about the nuclear crisis.
Maybe, the missile test was a show of strength before the opening of talks.
By sending its Under-Secretary of State, William Burns, to Geneva, the US might have signaled a major shift in its policy towards Iran. The Bush administration had previously ruled out any possibility of talks with Iran until it suspended uranium enrichment. Sending an envoy to Geneva was a big turnaround.
But is there a real effort for reconciliation? If so, why? The US presidential election is less than four months away. Bush will leave office before the end of January. Time is running out for President George W Bush. By opening the door of negotiations with Tehran, he only opened up option for his successor. It is a political gamble he took at relatively little cost. The incoming president would find it easier to engage Iran on the issue. But the prospect of Barak Obama getting elected might provoke Israel pre-emptive action. The danger is evident from the recent sabre-rattling by the two sides.
But the die-hard neocons are intrigued by Iran's sudden willingness to compromise. They say that Israel's recent military rehearsal for an attack on Iran was a wake-up call. They also think that Israel's negotiations with Syria, Hezbollah and the Palestinians, must also be worrying Tehran. Tehran also worries whether it can rely on Russia or China to block UN Security Council sanctions. The prospect of isolation, domestic pressure to avoid sanctions and soaring food price inflation could also be matters of concern for Tehran. Daily power cuts, water shortages, and swelling queues at the petrol stations could make an ever-resilient Ahmadinejad think whether his policies are working the way he wants.
Some Mideast specialists in the US reason, Iran was just trying to talk out the remaining days of the Bush administration. It is not just that Obama has promised to open unconditional talks with Tehran.
But the fact remains that Obama too supports Israel and his poll campaign team has strong pro-Israel bias. Obama reiterated time and again that he would be with Israel if Iran threatens it.
Last month, Russia offered Iran a range of incentives if it suspends its uranium enrichment operations. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in their first telephonic talks, a day before the key Geneva meeting, expressed the hope for a diplomatic solution to break the deadlock. Ahmadinejad expressed satisfaction over the current state of ties between Tehran and Moscow, with substantial economic interests. Medvedev reiterated his firm position on resolving the situation through political and diplomatic means.
After a long session of harsh rhetoric and threats from the US, its relations with Iran are witnessing a critical moment opening the prospects of diplomatic solutions. The US has been coercing Iran to halt its uranium enrichment programme.
Ever since the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran has been under virtual siege by the US and its allies. Following the brutal assassination of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Ahmedinejad's life has been under serious threat from Washington. Israel can have as many nukes as it desires with US support and UN endorsement. But, no other Arab nation can have nuclear facilities even for 'peaceful" purposes.
Recent one-to-one talk between Iran and the US only showcased the intentions of Washington in the Mideast under the guises of establishing a "new Mideast". The talks with Iran with American presence to encourage Tehran to make concessions did not cut much ice with Tehran. The US wants Iran to stop enrichment. The ultimatum of grace period is intended to create the framework for formal negotiations to lead to a permanent halt of enrichment. But the US is sure Iran would not stop its legitimate scientific advancement.
In the US, not Bush but Ahmadinejad is compared to Hitler, through Bush killed thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq and ordered torture in secret prison wards in Europe and elsewhere.
The US and the UNSC should be sincere in their de-nuclearization endeavours and avoid double-standard and double-speak. In the Mideast, Israel's nuclear arsenal is a threat to the regional peace. Israel never hesitates to launch air-strike against its neighbours.
The US should control Israel and its powerful lobby in Washington that the Western powers have so religiously promoted. Israel needs to be denuclearized. Only then coercing Iran would sound fair. The US and the UNSC cannot denuclearised or disarm the world.
The US remains as arrogant as ever. It lacks pragmatic or persuasive approach. Nothing could be predicted about the US intentions, unless it changes its policy towards Palestine. Iran should be extremely cautious as the US could go for a quick attack during the Holy Ramadan.
The writer is a researcher in international affairs and research scholar, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi
Iran is pursing its legitimate nuclear energy option. The USA, the world's only super power, slapped another two-week ultimatum on Iran to decide between confrontation and co-operation over its uranium enrichment programme.
At talks in Switzerland, Geneva on July 18, envoys from the US, the European Union (EU) and the UN yet again asked Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment in return for a pledge not to introduce new sanctions. In addition to the EU, Iranian and US envoys, the talks in Geneva's city hall were attended by representatives from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. Talks ended with Iran stonewalling Washington and five other world powers on their call to freeze uranium enrichment. The BBC reported Iran is interested in the offer but it is unclear whether there are divisions in the leadership or the Iranians are playing for time. "This package is a new opportunity which should not be lost." But doubt was cast over the value of the talks, after a member of the Iranian delegation said there was "no chance" of a freeze on the uranium-enrichment programme.
But the US says that talks' lack of progress may lead to "further isolation" of Iran. Iran state radio quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying, the talks were "a step ahead." The Western diplomats had hoped that Iran would respond to a so-called "freeze-for-freeze" offer, under which a freeze of Iran's uranium enrichment programme at its current levels would be matched by a Western pledge not to strengthen sanctions on Tehran.
"It was a constructive meeting, but still we didn't get the answer to our questions," EU envoy Xavier Solana told reporters. However, the meeting was the first time the US and Iranian officials met face-to-face on the nuclear issue. Senior US Under-Secretary William Burns presented the US at the Geneva talks. Although he made no public comments, Burns had delivered a "clear simple message" that Washington was "serious" about the incentives package but that it would only negotiate with Iran if it upheld its side of the deal. The US state department spokesman Sean McCormack issued a strongly-worded statement in Washington threatening the Iranian people to understand that their leaders need to make a choice between co-operation, which would bring "benefits to all", and confrontation, which can only lead to "further isolation. Tehran's continued activity is seen in the US as defying UN Security Council demands to halt enrichment.
Any realistic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis would need to involve active US engagement. But there are also plenty of elements in the US and Iranian governing circles who toe a different line. Hoping for a war in the Mideast, some do talk dangerously about the merits of a "limited war", others have even more ambitious military designs.
Israeli military exercises, focusing on Iran, do anger the Iranians, though Iran got used to such tactics and maneuvers by the USA-Israel combine.
Although Iran's latest missile tests have grabbed global headlines, the Western observers may have learned little they did not already know about the scope and potential firepower of Tehran's arsenal. The Iranian missiles have a maximum range of 500km (310 miles).
Saddam Hussein also fired Scud-type missiles at Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, causing limited damage and virtually no loss of life.
More than the US, it is Israel which is puzzled and disturbed by Iranian missile tests. Like the US neocons, the viciously powerful Israeli lobby has been pressing Washington to do something about Iran and immediately.
Iran tested successfully longer-range Shahab-3capable of striking targets in Israel. The longer range modified version Shahab-3, Iran says has a range of up to 2,500km capable of striking targets in the Gulf and Israel.
Analysts suggest that the tests were conducted to send the message that Iran was capable of hitting if attacked It has become a sheer habit of the US to use the UNSC as a rubber stamp to plan economic sanctions against opponents to force them to fall in line. These sanctions against opponents are indeed economic terrorism perpetrated against humanity, because ultimate suffers are the common people. Sanctions have been slapped on Iran before. Still the UNSC is thinking to slap harsher sanctions against Iran.
On July 20, the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of not being serious at the Geneva talks and about its alleged nuclear programme despite the presence of a senior US diplomat. She warned Iran might soon face new sanctions, if Tehran does not respond to a package of incentives offered in exchange for halting uranium enrichment. In her first public comments since the meeting in Switzerland, Rice said all six nations were serious about the two-week deadline by which Iran has to agree to freeze suspect activities and start negotiations or suffer new penalties. Rice slammed Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili for delivering a "meandering" monologue full of irrelevant "small talk about culture" that appeared to annoy many of the other participants at the Geneva meeting. "People are tired of the Iranians and their stalling tactics. It's time for the Iranians to give a serious answer." Rice told reporters aboard her plane as she flew to the United Arab Emirates.
Rice said unless Iran responds positively in the next two weeks, it can expect more sanctions to be imposed by the United States and the European Union as early as late August or September and may then face a fourth sanction from the UNSC.
However, Iranian state radio on July 19 reported that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the talks a "step ahead" and said his country's formal assessment would be given soon. Iran avoided the uranium enrichment "suspension" issue entirely.
Keen to dominate the world, the US and Israel neither gave up their nuclear arms nor stopped research on nuclear technology. But they both want Iran to fall in line. And, once again, Iran gave no guarantees it would halt its enrichment programme. Iran maintains its nuclear facilities are designed to meet its energy needs and denies that it has a weapons programme. Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili said he had put forward many positive ideas and he urged the Western powers not to turn away from the negotiations.
The US and Iran have had no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the taking of US embassy personnel in Tehran as hosts. Formal contact between the two countries has been extremely limited, though last year they met at ambassadorial level to discuss security in Iraq. The meeting came after weeks of rising tension in the Middle East. After the latest Iranian missile tests, Israel and Iran exchanged a series of threats and counter-threats nervously watched in the West. The US wants Tehran to accept the Western proposal soon to freeze its enrichment programme in return for avoiding new sanctions.
The Western and pro-western media always harps on anti-Iranian rhetoric and uses harsh expressions to threaten Iran. These media are also known to goad Israel and the US to go for punitive, preemptive action against Iran. The weapons manufacturers in these countries want to test their latest arms in war situations and showcase the efficacy of their high precision weapons to increase prospects of selling weapons to the hungry nations in the east.
While Solana is delegated to negotiate on the behalf of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, China, Russia, France and Britain, there would always be doubts in Tehran about how much he speaks for the Bush administration.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last week he was interested in direct talks with the US. He also said Iran was interested in an idea being floated in Washington -- to open a US diplomatic mission in Tehran for the first time since 1979. In a television interview, Ahmadinejad said he expected "something may happen soon" in US-Iranian relations. Like Bush, he too did not take the world into confidence to reveal what might be going behind the scene.
Any realistic solution to the Iranian enrichment programme would involve active US engagement at the diplomatic level. Both the sides have made it abundantly clear they want to talk, but neither is very good at listening. In the past Washington and Tehran have been like two star-crossed lovers. Every time one made an advance, the other turned away.
After the July missile tests by Iran, there are growing signs that both Iran and the US want to do some serious talking about the nuclear crisis.
Maybe, the missile test was a show of strength before the opening of talks.
By sending its Under-Secretary of State, William Burns, to Geneva, the US might have signaled a major shift in its policy towards Iran. The Bush administration had previously ruled out any possibility of talks with Iran until it suspended uranium enrichment. Sending an envoy to Geneva was a big turnaround.
But is there a real effort for reconciliation? If so, why? The US presidential election is less than four months away. Bush will leave office before the end of January. Time is running out for President George W Bush. By opening the door of negotiations with Tehran, he only opened up option for his successor. It is a political gamble he took at relatively little cost. The incoming president would find it easier to engage Iran on the issue. But the prospect of Barak Obama getting elected might provoke Israel pre-emptive action. The danger is evident from the recent sabre-rattling by the two sides.
But the die-hard neocons are intrigued by Iran's sudden willingness to compromise. They say that Israel's recent military rehearsal for an attack on Iran was a wake-up call. They also think that Israel's negotiations with Syria, Hezbollah and the Palestinians, must also be worrying Tehran. Tehran also worries whether it can rely on Russia or China to block UN Security Council sanctions. The prospect of isolation, domestic pressure to avoid sanctions and soaring food price inflation could also be matters of concern for Tehran. Daily power cuts, water shortages, and swelling queues at the petrol stations could make an ever-resilient Ahmadinejad think whether his policies are working the way he wants.
Some Mideast specialists in the US reason, Iran was just trying to talk out the remaining days of the Bush administration. It is not just that Obama has promised to open unconditional talks with Tehran.
But the fact remains that Obama too supports Israel and his poll campaign team has strong pro-Israel bias. Obama reiterated time and again that he would be with Israel if Iran threatens it.
Last month, Russia offered Iran a range of incentives if it suspends its uranium enrichment operations. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in their first telephonic talks, a day before the key Geneva meeting, expressed the hope for a diplomatic solution to break the deadlock. Ahmadinejad expressed satisfaction over the current state of ties between Tehran and Moscow, with substantial economic interests. Medvedev reiterated his firm position on resolving the situation through political and diplomatic means.
After a long session of harsh rhetoric and threats from the US, its relations with Iran are witnessing a critical moment opening the prospects of diplomatic solutions. The US has been coercing Iran to halt its uranium enrichment programme.
Ever since the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran has been under virtual siege by the US and its allies. Following the brutal assassination of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Ahmedinejad's life has been under serious threat from Washington. Israel can have as many nukes as it desires with US support and UN endorsement. But, no other Arab nation can have nuclear facilities even for 'peaceful" purposes.
Recent one-to-one talk between Iran and the US only showcased the intentions of Washington in the Mideast under the guises of establishing a "new Mideast". The talks with Iran with American presence to encourage Tehran to make concessions did not cut much ice with Tehran. The US wants Iran to stop enrichment. The ultimatum of grace period is intended to create the framework for formal negotiations to lead to a permanent halt of enrichment. But the US is sure Iran would not stop its legitimate scientific advancement.
In the US, not Bush but Ahmadinejad is compared to Hitler, through Bush killed thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq and ordered torture in secret prison wards in Europe and elsewhere.
The US and the UNSC should be sincere in their de-nuclearization endeavours and avoid double-standard and double-speak. In the Mideast, Israel's nuclear arsenal is a threat to the regional peace. Israel never hesitates to launch air-strike against its neighbours.
The US should control Israel and its powerful lobby in Washington that the Western powers have so religiously promoted. Israel needs to be denuclearized. Only then coercing Iran would sound fair. The US and the UNSC cannot denuclearised or disarm the world.
The US remains as arrogant as ever. It lacks pragmatic or persuasive approach. Nothing could be predicted about the US intentions, unless it changes its policy towards Palestine. Iran should be extremely cautious as the US could go for a quick attack during the Holy Ramadan.
The writer is a researcher in international affairs and research scholar, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi