Opinions | Columnists
Rethinking direct diplomacy
A sense of reality has descended on Obama, who has changed his tune from unconditional talks with Iran to negotiations at a 'time and place of my choosing', but time is not in his favour with the nuclear threat ticking on.
- By Amir Taheri, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 23:40 November 18, 2008
- Image Credit: Illustration: Nino Jose Heredia/Gulf News
It may be that the two sides are posturing with opening gambits designed to squeeze the maximum even before the game opens. President Barack Obama has gone out of his way to knock all urgency out of his own campaign promise of opening direct talks with Iran. For his part, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has spelled out a set off hefty conditions that, if fulfilled, would amount to a radical re-work of every aspect of American foreign policy, as a precondition for talks.
So, should we assume that the new US administration will quietly shelve the idea of direct unconditional talks with Iran in favour of the present multilateral strategy pursued through the Six Nation coalition? Not necessarily.
As already noted we may be witnessing nothing but the opening moves in a complicated chess game.
The prevalent view in Washington today is that the US will not achieve its goal in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East peace process and a set of other issues, without engaging Iran in one form or another.
Talking to Iran, of course, was one of candidate Obama's main foreign policy planks. It sounded both intelligent and attractive. After all, if one could achieve so many desirable results just by talking to Iran, why not?
The hitch
However, now there is a hitch.
Obama, the man who made the idea popular in the political microcosm, appears to be having second thoughts about the wisdom of an idea announced largely as a means of strengthening his anti-Bush message rather than dealing with a dangerous foreign foe. All the indications from Obama since his election are that he is no hurry to open talks with Tehran.
The other day, in response to a cable from President Ahmadinejad, congratulating him on his election, Obama indicated he was in no mood to accept the Iranian's invitation to dance.
There are several reasons for this.
To start with, he has realised that his offer of unconditional talks with Tehran could destroy the six-nation coalition that has managed to pass three United Nations Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran. Some allies, including France, have issued direct warnings that Obama's campaign promise may encourage Iran to speed up its nuclear programme. For his part, Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has indicated her "deep reservations" about Obama's campaign promises on Iran.
More importantly, perhaps, with the election over, Obama is reminded that the idea of talking to Iran is nothing new. First launched by West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher in 1980, it has been tried by the European Union, successive US administrations, and a number of Arab countries for a quarter of a century. It produced nothing but grief for those who tried it. Genscher ended up describing the Khomeinist regime as a "tar baby" whose embrace is best avoided.
Not a U-turn
To be sure, Obama cannot suddenly declare that he no longer wants direct and unconditional talks with Iran. That would enrage his original anti-war base and its useful idiot allies.
Therefore, he is trying to bring the camel down from the roof, as the Persian proverb has it, without appearing to have made a U-turn.
Now, there is no longer talk of "meeting them anywhere, anytime". Instead, Obama now talks of engaging Iran "at a time and place of my choosing". His initial idea of talking to Ahmadinejad is also gone. He now says he would talk to "appropriate Iranian leadership", whatever that means.
Clearly, the concept of "unconditional talks" is toned down. Obama now talks of "careful preparations". His advisers have also promoted another condition: Obama will not seek talks with Tehran until after the Iranian presidential election next summer. The idea is not to let Ahmadinejad use a breakthrough with the US as a means of enhancing his chances of re-election.
That Obama is rethinking his rash idea of plunging into unconditional talks with Tehran, even if that meant alienating key allies, is a welcome development. Obama's assertion that the Iranian problem cannot be solved with "a knee-jerk reaction" is also welcome.
Nevertheless, if the alternative is doing nothing, the new Obama position may prove to be more dangerous than the one he is trying to abandon ever so gingerly.
The reason is that the clock is not ticking in favour of those who wish to prevent Iran from building a nuclear arsenal. Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a warning that Iran has speeded up its nuclear programme. According to IAEA, Iran, in "a covert bid to expand its nuclear programme, recently tested ways of retrieving highly enriched uranium from waste reactor fuels".
Most Western and Russian experts agree that "the moment of truth" in Iran's nuclear stand-off with the UN is likely to come during Obama's presidency. The dates cited are 2010 and 2011. Unless, Obama manages to stop the process before that, he could end up facing a nuclear-armed Iran. At that point, the choice would be between acknowledging a fait accompli and using force to change it. Obama could avoid that Hobson's choice situation by devising a practical policy to deal with what is likely to be his major foreign policy headache for sometime.
Iranian author Amir Taheri was the editor-in-chief of Kayhan, one of the most prominent newspapers under the Shah. He now lives in exile in Europe and is a member of Benador Associates.
Share this article
More from Columnists
More from Opinions
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: Tough love
What ways do you use to discipline your child?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
US relations with Israel unchanged
Emanuel's meeting with the leaders of the pro-Israel lobby shows that Tel Aviv continues to wield influence
-
Arabs should help to resolve crisis in Yemen
While Sana'a is right to reject Iranian interference, others could have a part to play
-
Blackwater may be brought to book
For all the scandal, the mercenary firm has escaped any severe legal sanction. That could now change
