| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| US allies push for more diplomacy on Iran |
| 2006-05-03 |
| US efforts to form a new "coalition of the willing" that would impose sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme are running into objections from European and Asian allies who say the Bush administration must first exhaust all diplomatic options, including the United Nations process and direct talks with Tehran. A senior US official said President George W. Bush would reaffirm US opposition to direct negotiations with Iran should Angela Merkel, German chancellor, raise the issue at their White House meeting today. "We are very clear that we need to see some change in Iranian behaviour," the senior US official said just days after a 30-day UN Security Council deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment expired. "They are moving in the opposite direction. This does not provide an incentive for talks." A call for US-Iran dialogue was first raised in public last month by Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany's foreign minister. Mr Bush is also under pressure from some Republicans and Democrats in Congress to stop outsourcing negotiations on Iran's nuclear programme to Europe. Whether Iran's leadership is prepared for wide-ranging talks with the US is a matter of debate. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, made an important statement on March 22 when he accepted a US offer of talks on the issue of Iraq. But he also warned that the US wanted to use negotiations to impose its will, not reach a mutual agreement on wider issues. The history of US-Iranian relations since the 1979 Islamic revolution is littered with failed attempts to establish a serious dialogue. But documents obtained by the Financial Times reveal that Iran was ready to enter comprehensive talks in May 2003, shortly after the fall of Baghdad. On the table then was a proposal to discuss issues, including weapons of mass destruction, a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the future of Lebanon's Hizbollah organisation and co-operation with the UN nuclear safeguards agency. The proposed agenda, which the Iranian side claims was a result of earlier discussions with US officials, states that the two sides agree to a dialogue "in mutual respect". Issues put forward by Iran included US sanctions, frozen Iranian assets and withdrawal of the "axis of evil" label fixed on Tehran by Mr Bush in 2002. The agenda suggested initial steps to stabilise Iraq, measures to be taken against anti-Iranian elements in Iraq and al-Qaeda militants in Iran and Iranian support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Also proposed were three working groups to establish "three parallel road maps" on disarmament, terrorism and regional security, and economic co-operation. The Iranian offer - first reported by the FT in March 2004 - was ignored by the Bush administration. Instead, Washington protested to the Swiss Foreign Ministry, upbraiding Tim Guldimann, the Swiss ambassador to Tehran, who had been involved in communicating the offer and gave his opinion that it was an authentic proposal by Iran's leadership. Flynt Leverett, then in the National Security Council, said he saw the 2003 offer and Mr Guldimann's accompanying message - both were unclassified - and confirmed that the documents obtained by the FT last week were genuine. The US rejected the Iranian offer in 2003 from a position of strength - Baghdad had just fallen and regime change in Tehran was in the sights of Washington's neoconservatives. Three years later Iran is not in such a weak position, with the US bogged down in Iraq and oil prices at record highs. But circumstances inside Iran have also changed dramatically, and it is again debatable whether Iran is ready for such a dialogue along the lines of a "grand bargain". Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the fundamentalist president elected last year, is believed to be against engagement. Trita Parsi, a Middle East specialist at Johns Hopkins University, said Iran had been trying hard lately to get a dialogue with the US. But "stonewalling" by the US had strengthened the hand of Mr Ahmadi-Nejad. "The non-response to the 2003 Iranian proposal left many in Tehran with the impression that no Iranian concession would be sufficient to please Washington, even if they changed their position on Israel," he said. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |