UN and Iran : Is President Bush Opting for Negotiations?
An earlier TMV post talked about the Iranian former President Mohammed Khatami, who is currently on a lecture tour of the United States of America. Khatami was given a tourist visa and the Bush administration came under attack from certain quarters in America for extending this facility to Khatami.
Now see this news item alongwith this bit of news. The UN chief Kofi Annan, who was on a visit to Iran, “eased the pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme yesterday when he stopped short of condemning it for ignoring an international deadline to suspend uranium enrichment and appeared to accept a key part of its negotiating stance.”
So far no strong reaction from the US administration (let us keep our fingers crossed). Will President Bush agree to take the effective but dull/slow route to world peace – known as international diplomacy – considering that the election season not far in the USA?
But let us go on with the The Guardian story: “Speaking in Tehran at the end of a two-day visit, Mr Annan’s comments contrasted with those of President George Bush, who demanded ‘consequences’ after Iran missed last week’s UN security council ultimatum. Mr Annan said that he understood the issue better after meeting senior Iranian officials, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, and the foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki.
“His comments followed an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report which confirmed that Iran had defied a UN resolution to freeze uranium enrichment, a process that can be used to make atomic bombs. The agency also said it had been unable to confirm Iran’s claim that its nuclear programme was peaceful because of a lack of cooperation. The west believes the programme is designed to produce nuclear weapons.
“But rather than rebuke Tehran, Mr Annan pointed to an assurance from Mr Ahmadinejad that Iran wanted compromise. “The president reaffirmed to me Iran’s preparedness and determination to negotiate and find a solution to the crisis,” Mr Annan told a press conference. He said Mr Ahmadinejad had told him that Iran “does not accept suspension [of uranium enrichment] before negotiations”.
“But he added: “Iran has said it is open for negotiations. All issues can be discussed at the negotiations.”
“That comment appeared to mirror Iran’s position that the demand for suspension should be included in general negotiations and not set as a precondition.
“Mr Annan’s remarks came in the face of a US-led clamour for sanctions. They appeared destined to further slow the momentum after EU foreign ministers gave Tehran another two weeks to clarify its position and called for negotiations.
“The security council is expected to meet soon to discuss a new resolution that could include punitive measures. But hard-hitting sanctions are unlikely because of the opposition of Russia and China, which have strong economic ties to Tehran.
“Mr Annan also said he had secured Iran’s support for the UN-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon. He said Iran had promised to work with the UN to help rebuild Lebanon’s shattered infrastructure. But no mention was made of Tehran’s relationship with Hizbullah, which it is generally accepted used weapons supplied by Iran.”
Meanwhile oil fell more than a dollar to around $68 a barrel on Monday, pulled lower by expectations that any sanctions against oil producer Iran were some way off and would not necessarily disrupt export flows, says a Reuters report.
“U.S. light sweet crude was down 90 cents at $68.29 a barrel by 1516 GMT. London Brent crude was $1.22 a barrel lower at $67.93, just off a session low of $67.83, which was the lowest level since June 21.”
25 Responses to “UN and Iran : Is President Bush Opting for Negotiations?”
If he does, it will be a huge mistake.
“Will President Bush agree to take the effective but dull/slow route to world peace – known as international diplomacy – considering that the election season not far in the USA?”
If one is to hope that negotiations could produce a meaningful result then one must believe that Iran is not simply tapdancing around because in their minds nothing short of acquiring nuclear weapons is acceptable. Sorry. I don’t buy the whole “We only want peaceful nuclear power.” claim from a government that directly sponsors almost any Islamic terrorist group that asks and has not only a president but large group of clerics that belong to the government that call for the destruction of Israel. Somehow the two seem irreconcilable.
This strikes me as Iran stringing us along rather than any real effort at negotiation. They have a lot going for them in this, the booming economies of India and China need oil, cutting off supply from Iran is a huge issue. Oil money can be used to purchase technology from Russia, to gain another ally. Iran could increase its support for anti US Shiite elements in Iraq, causing more problems and distracting us from any Iranian problem. They also have Hezbollahs international organization to create other problems world wide if needed. They also know that Bush has credibility problems, any call for US action against Iran will be viewed in the skeptical light of what we did not find in Iraq and how that war has progressed. What they need is time while the Iraq situation is played out, before the energy of the US can be fully concentrated on them. Buy as much time as possible and have a nuke ready when the US is finally able to deal with Iran appears to me to be their strategy.
It seems to me we have three options in delaing with the Iranians: Bomb them, ignore and isolate them, talk to them.
For me, personally, and for the world-wide community generally I suspect, bombing Iran because of their technilogical advances, regardless of their rhetoric, is unacceptable. I know the warblogger’s position on this, so let’s just agree to disagree.
As for ignoring and isolating them I have one response: North Korea.
Which leaves option 3, talk to them.
Now I don’t disagree with Jim S and grognard, I can well believe that Iran ultimately wants to develop nuclear weapons and that they are acting now merely to delay increased sanctions, though I think we all agree, they don’t have The Bomb just yet, and may well not for many years to come.
My point is that every day we spend talking with them is another day we’re not bombing them, and so another day we’re not further debilitating American power and prestige around the world. Not to mention the global economy when Iran’s oil-production goes off-line
Every day we spend talking with them is another day we allow elements within Iranian society to chafe under the Mullah’s rule.
Every day we spend talking to them allows events on the ground to change. IAEA inspections could work for example, they were working in Iraq after all.
Every day we spend talking with them allows history to unfold and gives us clearer knowledge beyond suppostition and guesswork.
I certainly don’t claim to be able to predict world events in the coming days, months, years.
But then neither can you.
And, clearly, niether can our government (see, for example, EVERY prediction about Iraq).
But everyday we put off WWIII (or !V, or V, depending on who you ask) is a good day to be alive.
And that much is certain.
every day ‘we’ talk to them, they continue enriching uranium
every day ‘we’ talk to them, they will get closer to an atomic bomb
every day ‘we’ talk to them, will mean a day on which Iran defies the demands of the international community
every day…
We talked to the USSR after they had nukes and occupied Eastern Europe. I will have to Google, but reports are that their enrichment process is having big difficulties. All the Iranian rhetoric may be like Saddam’s WMD rhetoric. Talk to convince the world they have something that’s not there.
Here is a link to an article about enrichment setbacks. If we listen to Israelis propaganda and DOS spokesman, Iran is only months away from a bomb – LOL.
I think we need direct negotiations-it doesn’t mean that we have to take any of the other options off the table permanently. I agree with Caliblogger that isolation has done more harm than good in North Korea, where they were able to turn 2 nukes into 8 and recieve Iranian visitors to “observe” , while we were ignoring them.
You can worry about appeasing actions out of a wish to keep peace at any cost, which led to WWII, but WWI started because countries had strict alliances which prevented negotiations with the powers they ended up fighting against, and there was a prolonged period of military build-up in Europe. The great presidents -Reagan, FDR, Kennedy, Truman- always talked to their adversaries. Or does anyone suggest that Kennedy appeased the Communists when he talked to Kruschev or Reagan did so when he talked to Gorby?
Ooppss – Enrichment problems
As Rudi points out we don’t really even know what we don’t know. Going to war on such a basis is what got us into Iraq.
I sometimes despair at relying on WWI history when some can’t seem to remember last year.
If Iran is stringing us along, that works to our benefit just as much as it does to theirs. Every day that the two sides talk is another day towards January 21, 2009, when the US might, just might, inaugerate a President who isn’t a certifiable lunatic with delusions of war-endowed grandeur.
Iran “might” be able to build an atomic bomb in 5 years.
The US will definitely get a different President in 2.5 years.
Keep talking. Definitely keep talking.
Talking to them gives them a legitimacy they don’t deserve on the issue. You cannot negotiate in any meaningful way with someone who is lying to you on the core issue that you are supposedly having negotiations about. Until they can be honest about their goals, exactly what are we negotiating about? They’ve already stated unequivocally that they will not do what the international community wants them to do. There is no place to move on that question, they are going to enrich uranium Then they say we can negotiate. About what?
Rudi, enough with the anti-Semitic comments already. The Israelis are not making unrealistic comments about Iranian progress towards a bomb. Also, your article cites a setback that is very minor in their overall progress towards nuclear weapons.
Jim S
Because I don’t blindly support Israel you cannot call me an anti-Semite. This is a ploy by many to cast all critics of Israel as anti-Semites and please don’t use it on me.
I have followed the Iranian nuclear program and find that hawks in both Israel and the US overstate or lie about the program to scare the world like the “mushroom cloud” propaganda before the Iraq war. Here are two links to stories where US and Israelis officials are lieing about the status of Iranian enrichment. For me to call out these lies doesn’t make me an appeaser or anti-Semetic. Please read the stories linked below and explain how using this info my critisism of US and Israelis lies makes me an anti-Semetic.
From Bloomberg, not Arryan Nation:
“>Bloomin lies
From UK Independent, not al-Jazera
UK Indy lies
Please explain how these bold face times aren’t lies to demonize the Iranians and to incite fear to justify preemptive strikes?
Jim S
Rudi directed MvdG to Pravda stories/editorials that are real anti-Semitism. An anonymus/psuedonym author at Pravda writes disgusting anti-Semetic rants that are then posted on NationalVanguard and indymedia sites. What are you doing other than throwing around baseless anti-Semitism charges?
Look folks it’s comming down to this.
US/EU backing Sunni….China/Russia/India backing Shiite.
2 sides are eventually going to form here with Israel having to make a tough decision by either as quitely as possible sitting it all out, or backing the Sunni faction in the end, because a major conflict is comming. And Israel cannot be the spark to devide the West from Sunni, because the Shiite’s have already got their ducks lining up into a row with the next superpower on it’s side.
Welcome to scenario 2050, if any oil is left to fight over by then. And maybe sooner if the oil fields start drying up.
The Independent is the same paper that publishes Robert Fisk, aren’t they? Frankly, their accuracy on these issues is less than Al-Jazeera. You’re not familiar with how British media works, are you, Rudi? I think the Israelis have screwed up a whole lot. But there is a difference between being a critic of Israeli actions and the shrill BS I see in your posts. Please notice that even the Independent quoted an Israeli as saying they would have the knowledge in six months, not the material.
Long time ago I was told that the average American perception about its relations with other countries is “Either you are my pal, or you are my enemy”. This is clearly reflected in most of the comments/posts I get to read in American blogs.
I am being blunt because very rarely I find anyone taking any other position.
I am giving only one example of this:
India has excellent relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran. So what do I say about the above quotation. This is not the exception but the rule in American blogs.
Iran may take five years making a bomb, but when will the American attitude change, and which is more explosive that the bomb itself.
Ignorance can be bliss but at times it can be fatal!!!
Maybe so, but India will need to feed it’s economy Swaraaj. And good relations with Israel isn’t Iranian oil/natural gas now is it? Or does your country currently buy it’s oil from magic fairyland?
Being realistic is what I was doing, and at the end of the day India will have to choose what makes it’s economic engine run. All countries choose number 1 when it comes to it’s economy throughout history, and India isn’t going to be some special case.
Sorry if this upsets you that I’d set up a scenario not to your personal liking, but after your personal hyping of India’s massive economic growth recently, how do you think India is going to act if that growth is threatened?
And one other thing Swaraaj, I’d prefer the US quit playing world police.
So trying to make me out to be one of those “your with us, or against us” types only makes you ignorant of how I personally think.
Thanks for the sterotyping from afar.
Jim S
Please tell me how British press works, I lack your knowlege and vision. I gave two sources for the inflated timeline for Irans enrichment program propaganda, you only attack the paper, not the false statements. For your info, would you call Haaretz shrill or anti-semetic in their critisism of Israel? Please debate the issues, at Haaretz they also allow debate in the comments from all sides. If you don’t like differing views I bet FreeRepublic will welcome you.
What’s up with that jacket that Ahmadinejad always wears? It looks like a 1980s LL Bean jacket. Seriously. Why does he always wear it? It’s not “Islamic” or “Persian.” It’s not fashionable. It’s just low-budget Western.
Rudi,
I despise FreeRepublic. But I recognize that in the British media there is no pretense of objectivity. They choose a side and pretty much everything they print reflects that viewpoint, much like Fox News. The Independent has gone too far in its “liberal” viewpoint, IMO. As I said, I’m more than willing to criticize Israel when they are wrong on things and boy did they screw up a lot in Lebanon but what I find objectionable in your posts is their hyper-shrill tone. You cross the line from criticizing Israel into sounding so hyper-critical that anti-Semitism on your part is a natural suspicion. If you don’t want to be suspected of it take a different tone in your criticism that comes across as more reasoned criticism rather than sounding like you’re blaming Israel for everything and not recognizing bad things the other side does as well.
Michael VdG
Yes its true. Every day we talk to them they are enriching uranium. But we are not talking to them now, and every day we are not talking to them, they are enriching uranium.
We are in a very tight spot with Iran- we are not in a position to involve ourselves in another ground war, we don’t have good intelligence on where there nuclear sites are, so we can’t bomb them, we also lack reliable intelligence on when they will actually be able to build a nuclear weapon.
For all we know, they could be dealing with impoverished North Korea to purchase one of their bombs or the technology/materials to make them. We have an unpopular president in power who has miscalculated grievously in the wars we are already involved in in Afghanistan and Iraq. By and large, I think he lacks the popular support to expand the military effort into Iran.
What is your suggestion for a course of action?
Jim S
Please give a couple of examples of what you say are “hyper-shrill tone”. I don’t recall if you were commenting here before SalM was barred. I have never generalized that “Jews” are the root cause of any of the worlds problems. In todays enviroment(with the ME) any critism of Israel tends to be labelled anti-Semitism. I find David Horowitz’s and Alan Dershowitz’s uber-Israelis support to suppress any discussion of Israel. Like I have commented before, read the comments at Haaretz for debate on both sides. Talking to Arab/ME states, even Iran and Syria, is the same as talking to USSR and Red China. Much more can be learned from dissecting those discussions than trusting the analysis of MEMRI or CAIR.
I know you were directing this to MvdG but here’s my answer:
The only chance for avoiding war is to create a situation that makes Tehran see that pursuing the nukes isn’t in their best interest. The way to do that is by emphasizing results that will not be positive for them, including economic results (loss of trade partners in EU), security results (they would start an arms race with Sunni powers around them which they would probably lose), and political results (there is already a sizable resistance group within Iran that believes that pursuing nuclear weapons isn’t in their interest…we need to empower them by exposing human rights violations, exposing the way they treat dissenters, and by making sure that their propaganda to their people is countered by our messages.)
The main sticking point of all of this, is whether US and EU can come together on it…plus the fact that it has to also be backed up by big stick as the ultimate step if pressures don’t work, and of course there are doubts as to whether US and/or NATO can do this.