Leading article: A welcome change of tack by Washington
Friday, 18 July 2008
The surest reason for believing that America really has reversed its policy on Iran, to the pursuit of face-to-face negotiations and the establishment of a US office in Tehran, is the outrage it has caused among hardliners in Washington. It is, according to John Bolton, George Bush's former ambassador to the UN and a noted hawk where Iran is concerned, a "sell-out" and an abandonment of a policy of forcing Iran to stop its nuclear programme through military threats and trade sanctions.
Washington's change of approach towards the prime member of Mr Bush's original "axis of evil" is no such thing, of course. What it amounts to is a sensible move from war-war to jaw-jaw at a time when talks between Iran and the European UN members over Iran's nuclear ambitions appear to be making some headway. True, the White House has to date always said it would refuse to sit down in negotiation with Iran until the latter ceased its uranium enrichment activities (although it has sat down with Iranian representatives in talks about Iraq). It is true, too, that the White House has, until now, believed that only the threat of military action would pressure Iran to halt its nuclear programme.
But the mood has changed, in Tehran as much as Washington. In the first place, the threat of war has proved largely counter-productive, playing into the rhetorical hands of Iran's firebrand President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The more the option has been discussed, the more the sheer practical problems of carrying out an effective strike that would disable Iran's plants without producing a conflagration, have loomed large, as a steady stream of generals has declared in public.
The threat of further sanctions, on the other hand, does seem to have produced a more positive response from Tehran. The precise intentions of Iran's government are always hard to determine, given the opaque nature of its leadership. But there have been signs that, beset by popular unrest at rising prices and besieged by sanctions, the supreme ruler Ayatollah Khamenei desires to step back from outright confrontation. Iran should be enjoying an economic renaissance with the high price of oil, but it isn't and its public wants to know why.
It is fruitless to argue about which side is blinking first. Neither has done more than express a willingess to talk. But we have two forces coming together. On one side is a US President who, in his final year, is moving back to the paths of traditional diplomacy, not just with Iran, but North Korea and the Middle East. On the other side we have an Iranian President who is coming under restraint from Iran's old establishment. It doesn't make a summer but it does make a fluttering dove.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited





Burns & Jalili have not sat down in the same room yet, and we have editorial well wishers consigning the darkest of human nature to a damp basement in a museum. Amen.
bibijon.org
Posted by BiBiJon | 18.07.08, 15:52 GMT
I am hopeful that logic and reason will rule the day and there will be no war with Iran. A couple of weeks ago I published an article, WAR ON IRAN: THE PERFECT STORM FROM HELL, that laid out how Iran used top former Soviet biological warfare experts to create a world class advanced biowar (ABW) program with recombination DNA genetic engineering technology. They now have a global strategic weapon of mass destruction (ABW) that can kill hundreds of millions in North America and Europe. A all out attack on Iran would likely trigger a counter response. We really don't want to go there. When both sides have global strategic weapons you have a MAD (mutually assured destruction) environment, just like the one in the Cold War between NATO and the old Warsaw Pact. There is no victory in a war in a MAD environment.
Stirling
Posted by Lord Stirling | 18.07.08, 13:39 GMT
Meanwhile back in the real world :
The Stick has been deemed ineffective as it was always a failed strategy - US would prefer Iran to NOT have nuclear weapons of course but recognises that nuclear weapons have always been a no-first use weapon due to guaranteed destruction. The Mullahs are not that stupid...
However - the Committe to Liberate Iran moves into new phase - US special forces continue to operate deep inside Iran; CIA uses US establishment as a basis for linking to opposition groups , funneling money and assets ...CIA recruits on the ground for the all important human assets required ultimately to get first hand information, ...
The view that doves are breaking out in Washington is staggering in its naivety.
Posted by whatsittake | 18.07.08, 07:06 GMT
at long last wisdom has dawned on the hawks.Hope Tehran will respond in a similar way
Posted by m.d.raina | 18.07.08, 02:47 GMT
Very good move. I think US administration has finally realised that war can not solve the problem but destroy the humanity. The world needs peace. It is already tired of facing war after war. US should take leadership in building peace, community cohesion and stability on this planet rather than spreading hatred.
Posted by Hamid H Azad | 18.07.08, 01:49 GMT