Dialogue with Iran
IRAN always wanted bilateral talks with the US but the Bush administration never agreed to it. At one stage Iran's President Ahmadinejad even wanted to hold a debate with former president Bush.
In fact, since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, the US and Iran never held any dialogue face-to-face. The two countries severed diplomatic relations in 1980.
On January 27, President Obama, in his first interview with Dubai-based Arab TV Al- Arabiya, said to the Muslim world: "The Americans are not your enemy." He offered a dialogue with Iran and expressed readiness to listen rather than dictate.
President Barack Obama retooled US foreign policy along three Ds: diplomacy, development and defence. The president's new vision revealed on September 23 at the UN General Assembly is considered even by his critics, such as the Venezuelan president, as message of "new hope" for the world. Obama wields American power through the prism of cooperation, and received a rapturous welcome at the UN from many developing countries that would have previously stayed aloof.
In recent days, Iran has become defiant and, on September 27, started testing missiles with a range of 1300-2000km (capable of hitting Israel). It revealed the existence of a pilot plant in a letter to the UN watchdog IAEA. The publication of this news was made public as the world leaders met in Pittsburgh for the G-20 meeting on September 24.
The revelation raised the stakes as Iranian officials are due to meet in Geneva on October 1 with officials from six nations -- the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany.
US officials voiced frustration that Iran has ignored Washington's demand to cease enriching uranium and allow inspectors from the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog, greater access to its nuclear installations.
The deeper worry for the US and allies is that the new facility at Qom could be just one of a number of secret sites. President Obama, at the meeting of G-20, urged Iran to come clean on nuclear facilities, although he stated that Iran had the right to peaceful nuclear energy. The worry is whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
On September 27, in his weekly radio address, Obama criticised Iran's behaviour, which he linked to planned development of nuclear weapons and said: "This is a serious challenge to the global non-proliferation regime and continues a distrurbing pattern of Iranian evasion. That is why the forthcoming negotiations take on added urgency."
In case Iran does not fully cooperate and demonstrate its peaceful intentions, tougher sanctions are likely to be imposed. It is noted that Western officials recently indicated that the diplomatic track was all but exhausted and the groundwork was being prepared for new sanctions.
Russia's president, at a meeting with President Obama in the US, said that sanctions did not work but were often inevitable. This comment shows that Russia is willing to go along with the US on the Iran issue in the backdrop of President Obama's decision to scrap the missile shield defence policy in Poland and Czech Republic, which was annoying Russia.
It is not known how China, a veto-carrying member of the UN Security Council, will respond to the new sanctions on Iran. Ordinarily, China does not like to be the only member to exercise its veto in the Security Council.
There are other factors for a dialogue with Iran, and some of them are as follows:
First, Washington is deeply concerned with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US realises that unless Iran is brought on board, there is little hope of stability in those countries. Washington needs cooperation from Iran in stabilising Afghanistan and Iraq.
Second, Washington is now very serious in peace talks with Israeli-Palestinians. It hopes Iran can support the Palestinian-Israeli peace progress by cutting off support for militant groups fighting Israel, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza .
What is the alternative other than a dialogue? Bombing Iran would entail unimaginable consequences. The history of diplomacy makes it amply clear that long-standing disputes require engagement, not isolation. The talks are positive signs because dialogue is the only answer to such inter-state disputes within the framework of Article 33 of the UN Charter, which enunciates peaceful settlement of disputes.
Furthermore, even when talks initially fail, both sides have a better understanding of each other's views on the matter, and that is very helpful in eventually resolving the dispute.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments