Iran-U.S.A

[RedWine]

Iran is engaging in a proxy war with the United States in Iraq, adopting tactics similar to those it has used to back fighters in Lebanon, the United States ambassador to Iraq said Friday.
The remarks by the ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker, reflected the sharper criticism of Iran by President Bush and his top deputies over the past week, as administration officials have sought to trace many of their troubles in Iraq to Iran.

Mr. Crocker said in an interview that there had been no substantive change in Iranian behavior in Iraq, despite more than a year of talks between the Bush administration and Iran over how to calm Shiite-Sunni tensions in Iraq. He said that the paramilitary branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps was continuing to direct attacks by Shiite militias against American and Iraqi targets, although he offered no direct evidence.

Asked if the United States and Iran were engaged in a proxy war in Iraq, Mr. Crocker said, “I don’t think a proxy war is being waged from an American point of view.” But, he added, “When you look at what the Iranians are doing and how they’re doing it, it could well be that.”

While Bush administration officials have long denounced what they have described as Iran’s meddling in Iraq, Mr. Crocker’s language was unusually strong, reflecting fresh concern about what he described in Congressional testimony this week as Iran’s role in supplying militias with training and weapons, including rockets used in recent attacks on the Green Zone, in Baghdad.

The Bush administration is trying to exploit any crack it can find between the largely Shiite, pro-Iranian government of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and Iran’s Shiite government. On Friday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said that Iran’s role in supporting radical Shiite militias in recent clashes with Iraqi security forces had been an “eye-opener” for the central government in Baghdad.

“I think that there is some sense of an increased level of supply of weapons and support to these groups,” Mr. Gates said. “I would say one of the salutary effects of what Prime Minister Maliki did in Basra is that I think the Iraqi government now has a clearer view of the malign impact of Iran’s activities inside Iraq.”

From Mr. Bush down, administration officials this week have been turning up the volume on Iran. Administration officials said that Iranian support for Shiite militias became increasingly evident late last month during the indecisive Iraqi operation to wrest control of Basra from Shiite militias, in addition to the rocket attacks on the Green Zone.

Administration officials have long accused Iran of supporting Shiite militias in attacks on American forces in Iraq. The difference now is that administration officials are trying to convince the Iraqi government that Iran may not be the ally it thought, and is behind attacks against Iraqi government forces. That is a harder sell, given that Iran has supported Iraq’s government.

Mr. Bush this week accused Iran of arming, financing and training what he called “illegal militant groups.” He said that Iran had a choice, and hinted that the United States would try to sow distrust between the governments of Iran and Iraq, if Iran did not stop backing the attacks.

“If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq,” he said Thursday. “If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners.”

Mr. Gates, speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, said that Iraqi officials were starting to pay heed. “They have had what I would call a growing understanding of that negative Iranian role, but I think what they encountered in Basra was a real eye-opener for them.”

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed the assessment that Basra offered evidence to counter statements that Iran was decreasing its efforts in Iraq. “As far as I’m concerned, this action in Basra was very convincing that indeed they haven’t,” the admiral said.

In addition, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, told reporters on Friday that while the Iraqi police and army troops had established security through most of Basra, “several significant neighborhoods are not under control of the Iraqi security forces.” Combating the Shiite militias in those enclaves of Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, will be “a months-long operation,” he said.

Iran remains one of the Bush administration’s stickiest foreign policy issues, and Washington is battling Iran on multiple fronts, as administration officials struggle to find a carrot-and-stick approach for influencing Iranian behavior. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that the United States would consider new incentives or sanctions as part of its battle to get Iran to rein in its nuclear ambitions.

She said she did not anticipate a new push just yet, but said that “we will always continue to consider refreshing both tracks,” referring to the administration’s two-track approach of sanctions if Iran continues to enrich uranium and incentives if it stops.

Russia and China have been urging major powers to sweeten the incentives package, but thus far the United States has balked.

During the interview, Mr. Crocker accused Iran of meddling in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza, in addition to Iraq. He also faulted Iraq’s Arab neighbors for refusing to help, noting that a promised Saudi Arabian Embassy had yet to materialize.

“The Arabs are basically missing in action,” Mr. Crocker said. He said that while Saudi Arabia had helped in American attempts to rein in the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, Sunni governments in the Middle East needed to establish more of a diplomatic presence in Iraq, which Bush officials believe would further legitimize the American-backed Iraqi government.

“It’s one of those things that have been in process for a long time,” Mr. Crocker said of the promised Saudi Embassy. “They’ve sent a delegation to scout out property. But somehow it never quite gets done.”

[RedWine]

BAGHDAD -- A series of conflicts with insurgent groups along Iran's borders may be impelling Tehran to back its own allies in Iraq in what it regards as a proxy war with the U.S., according to security experts and officials in the U.S., Iran and Iraq.

Dozens of Iranian officials, members of the security forces and insurgents belonging to Kurdish, Arab Iranian and Baluch groups have died in the fighting in recent years. It now appears to be heating up once again after an unusually cold and snowy winter.

In recent weeks, Iranians have begun the now-routine bombardment of suspected rebel Iranian Kurd positions in northern Iraq, and guerrillas have claimed incursions into northwestern Iran.

Some Iranians blamed Sunni Arab radicals for an explosion Saturday that killed 12 and injured 202 at a gathering where a preacher criticized the Wahhabi form of Islam that inspires Osama bin Laden.

None of the groups appear to pose a serious threat to Iran, but Tehran regards them as Washington's allies in an effort to pressure it to scale back its nuclear program and withhold support for militant groups fighting Israel. American and Iraqi officials in turn accuse Iran of supporting Shiite Muslim militias and other militant groups in Iraq to keep the U.S. preoccupied and the Baghdad government weak.

Although a U.S. intelligence estimate in December undercut claims that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program and appeared to lower the possibility of a direct military conflict over Iran's uranium enrichment operations, tensions over Iraq have increased. U.S. officials accuse Iran of backing Shiite militias close to cleric Muqtada Sadr that fought Iraqi government forces to a standstill in Basra and Baghdad two weeks ago.

Tempting assets

Analysts say the anti-Iranian groups are tempting assets for the U.S. They say it would be a surprise if the groups were not receiving U.S. funding, but that the strategy would probably not work.

"It will give more encouragement to Iran's hard-liners to step up their own efforts to assist anti-American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst now at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

Among the most active groups is the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, known by its Kurdish acronym, PEJAK. It has hundreds of well-trained fighters along with camps in northern Iraq.

Iranian soldiers guarding the border are sometimes ambushed by PEJAK fighters. Iran responds with artillery attacks that send Iraqi villagers scurrying for cover. Border s***mishes last summer and fall between Iranian security forces and PEJAK left dozens dead on both sides.

PEJAK emerged this decade as an Iranian offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, an armed group formed to fight a separatist war against the Turkish government.

Former members say PEJAK was meant to circumvent Western restrictions on contacts with the PKK, which has been labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department and the European Union.

"The PKK wanted to have a relationship with America, so it formed and used PEJAK," said Mamand Rozhe, a former commander who defected from the group four years ago.

U.S. military officials visited PEJAK's camps in northern Iraq just after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, said Osman Ocalan, a brother of the PKK's imprisoned leader and a founder of PEJAK.

"Since the beginning, we thought we would get the American help," said Ocalan, who left the group two years ago. "And it's a good relationship now. . . . They are in talks with each other, and there is some military assistance."

Ocalan and others say U.S. help has included foodstuffs, economic assistance, medical supplies and Russian military equipment, some of it funneled through nonprofit groups. Every two or three months, U.S. military vehicles can be seen entering PKK and PEJAK strongholds, Ocalan said.

"There's no systematic relationship, no number to call," he said. "Americans do not intend to have an official relationship. Whenever there's any kind of question by the Turks, they can say we don't have a relationship."

A PEJAK leader, Abdul Rahman Haji-Ahmadi, was publicly given a cold shoulder when he went to Washington last summer.

PEJAK's activities may have created obstacles for those working inside Iran for peaceful change. Dozens of Kurdish activists in Iran have been thrown in jail on charges of supporting the rebel group.

[RedWine]

تابناک:جان مک کين، نامزد جمهوريخواهان در انتخابات رياست جمهوری آمريکا خواستار آن شد که در صورت معلق نشدن برنامه اتمی ايران تحريم های جديدی عليه تهران اعمال شود.

مک کين که در نشست سالانه آيپک، لابی قدرتمند آمريکا � اسرائيل سخن می گفت از جمله خواستار اعمال محدوديت هايی در زمينه فروش بنزين به ايران شد.

اين سناتور ايالت آريزونا بار ديگر به باراک اوباما، رقيب احتمالی دمکرات خود در انتخابات رياست جمهوری آينده حمله کرد و اظهارات او در باره مذاکره با تهران را يک ,بازخوانی غلط از تاريخ, توصيف کرد.

وی گفت: ,پيگيری (ساخت) سلاح اتمی از سوی تهران يک ريسک و خطر غير قابل قبول است که ما نمی توانيم اجازه طرح آن را بدهيم.,

نامزد جمهوريخواهان افزود: ,به جای نشستن پشت ميز مذاکره با رييس جمهوری و يا رهبر ايران بدون پيش شرط و با اين اميدواری که می توانيم با آنها در برخی موارد گفت وگو کنيم، ما بايد يک فشار واقعی جهانی ايجاد کنيم که به صورت صلح آميز و موثر راهی را که آنها دنبال می کنند، تغيير دهد.,

به گفته مک کين، ,سختگيری بين المللی عليه واردات بنزين توسط ايران به علاوه تحريم های شديدتر مالی عليه بانک های ايران، محدوديت صدور ويزا در سطح جهانی و مسدود کردن دارايی های اين کشور کمک خواهد کرد تا ذهنيت مقامات ايران تغيير کند.,

وی اظهار داشت: ,يک محدوديت شديد بر واردات بنزين توسط ايران فشاری فوری را بر مقامات ايران برای تغيير روش خود وارد خواهد کرد و ادامه برنامه سلاح های اتمی را متوقف می کند.,

نامزد جمهوريخواهان همچنين به باراک اوباما، سناتور ايليونيز و از نامزدهای حزب دمکرات در انتخابات به دليل پيشنهاد او برای ديدار و مذاکره با رهبران ايران حمله کرد.

اردوگاه انتخاباتی باراک اوباما در هفته های گذشته بارها به موضع گيری عليه جان مک کين پرداخته و او را متهم کرده دنباله رو سياست های جرج بوش، رييس جمهوری آمريکا است.

اوباما می گويد که سياست های دولت کنونی آمريکا در خاورميانه تنها باعث قدرتمند تر شدن ايران شده است.

[RedWine]

TEHRAN, Iran - On a recent afternoon, while riding a rickety bus down Tehran's main thoroughfare, I overheard two women discussing the grim state of Iranian politics. One of them had reached a rather desperate conclusion. "Let the Americans come," she said loudly. "Let them sort things out for us."

Although their leaders still call America the "Great Satan," ordinary Iranians' affection for the United States seems to be thriving these days, at least in the bustling capital. This rekindled regard is evident in people's conversations, their insatiable demand for US products and culture, and their fascination with the US presidential campaign.

One can't do reliable polling about Iranians' views under their theocratic government, of course, but these shifts were still striking to me as a longtime visitor – not least because liking the US is also a way for Iranians to register their frustration with their own firebrand president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

It might startle some Americans to realize that Iran has one of the most pro-American populations in the Middle East. Iranians have adored America for nearly three decades, a sentiment rooted in nostalgia for Iran's golden days, before the worst of the shah's repression and the 1979 Islamic revolution. But today's affection is new, or at least different.

Starting in about 2005, Iranians' historic esteem for the US gave way to a deep ambivalence that is only now ending. President Bush's post-9/11 wars of liberation on both of Iran's borders rattled ordinary Iranians, and Washington's opposition to Iran's nuclear program added to their resentment. In early 2006, when I lived in Iran as a journalist, I had only to step outdoors to hear the complaints.

It was a time when Iranians of all ages and backgrounds united in their pique against the US, turning their backs on its traditions and culture. But on a recent trip to Iran, I found a shift in sentiment.

The most interesting aspect of the revival of warm feelings today is that the US has done so little to earn them. Instead, Iranians' renewed pro-American sentiments reflect the depth of their alienation from their own rulers. As a family friend put it: "It's a matter of being drawn to the opposite of what you can't stand."

I lived in Iran until last summer and experienced all the reasons why Mr. Ahmadinejad has replaced the US as Iranians' top object of vexation. Under his leadership, inflation has spiked at least 20 percent, according to nongovernment analysts – thanks to Ahmadinejad's expansionary fiscal policies, which inject vast amounts of cash into the economy.

Inflation has hit the real estate market particularly hard. Housing prices have surged by nearly 150 percent, according to real estate agents. For most Iranians, previously manageable rents have become tremendous burdens.

I watched Ahmadinejad on television as he addressed Iranians from the holy city of Qom. He blamed everyone – the hostile West, a domestic "cigarette mafia" – for the economic downturn, just as he had previously claimed that a "housing mafia" was driving up real estate prices.

Many Iranians who initially believed this kind of conspiracy talk now admit that the president's policies and obstinacy are actually at fault. In a sign that even the regime is growing impatient, one of Ahmadinejad's chief rivals – former top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani – was elected speaker of Iran's parliament last week by an overwhelming majority.

To add to Iranians' weariness, there are the interminable lines that have accompanied the government's new gas-rationing scheme. Ahmadinejad has insinuated that the unpopular plan was a precaution against possible Western sanctions, but most people I spoke with considered it another instance of his administration's mismanagement.

Beyond the new penury, Ahmadinejad has also resurrected unpopular invasions into Iranians' private lives. On the second day of my trip, newspapers announced that police would begin raiding office buildings and businesses to ensure that women were wearing proper Islamic dress. On the third day, police swept our street to confiscate illegal satellite dishes. "I'm going to miss 'American Idol,' " a neighbor sighed, fiddling with her satellite dish.

Yet another issue helping to restore Iranians' regard for the US is the withering relevance of Iran's suspected nuclear program. At the height of his popularity, Ahmadinejad successfully rallied public support around the program with catchy slogans such as, "Nuclear energy is our absolute right." But that defiance failed to win Iran much more than the disagreeable whiff of global-pariah status, moving many Iranians to reconsider the costs of nuclear enrichment.

Of course, a minority of Iranians still hate the Great Satan. But the strain of anti-Americanism in Iran is more mellow than the rage found elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world.

The Palestinian cause is less deeply felt here, making it easier for even Washington's critics to view relations pragmatically. Most Iranians belong to generations with compelling reasons to admire the US.

Those old enough to remember the shah's era are nostalgic for the prosperity and international standing Iran once enjoyed; those born after the revolution see no future for themselves in today's Iran and adopt their parents' gilded memories as their own.

These longings have young and old Iranians alike following the US election. Most favor Sen. Barack Obama, who they believe will patch up relations with Iran.

But the mullahs in power still can't figure out how to stop being US-hating revolutionaries. Until they do, most people here will consider the "Great Satan" just great.

[RedWine]

متكي: مشاركت آمريكا در گفتگوهاي اتمي مثبت است


آقاي اسد ابراز ترديد كرده كه دخالتش بتواند كمكي به حل مناقشه هسته اي ايران و غرب كند
منوچهر متكي، وزير امور خارجه ايران تصميم آمريكا براي مشاركت در گفتگوهاي هسته اي ايران را "مثبت" ارزيابي كرد و افزود كه ايران از همكاري هاي سازنده در گفتگوهاي روز شنبه استقبال مي كند.
قرار است ويليام برنز، معاون وزارت امور خارجه آمريكا براي اولين بار در گفتگوهاي روز شنبه كه در ژنو بين خاوير سولانا، مسئول سياست خارجي اتحاديه اروپا، و سعيد جليلي، سرپرست مذاكرات هسته اي ايران، انجام مي شود، حضور يابد.

گفتگوهاي ژنو درباره بسته پيشنهادي گروه 1+5 به ايران است.

آقاي متكي، اين سخنان را در يك كنفرانس خبري در دمشق عنوان كرد.

وزير امور خارجه ايران امروز(پنج شنبه، 17 ژوئيه) وارد سوريه شد و در بدو ورود به اين كشور گفت كه درباره "تازه ترين تحولات خاور ميانه" با بشار اسد، رئيس جمهور سوريه، گفتگو مي كند.

گفته مي شود كه مناقشه هسته اي ايران يكي از محورهاي گفتگوهاي آقاي متكي و آقاي اسد است.

آقاي اسد پيشتر گفته بود كه به درخواست فرانسه، درباره راههاي حل بحران هسته اي ايران با آقاي متكي گفتگو خواهد كرد.

نيكولا ساركوزي، رئيس جمهور فرانسه، چند روز پيش در پاريس با بشار اسد ديدار كرد.

ايران و سوريه متحدان نزديكي هستند اما آقاي اسد ابراز ترديد كرده كه پا درمياني او كمكي به حل مناقشه بين ايران و كشورهاي غربي كند.

در همين حال امروز كاندوليزا رايس، وزير امور خارجه آمريكا نيز در گفتگو با خبرنگاران درباره گفتگوهاي آقاي جليلي و آقاي سولانا درباره بسته پيشنهادي گروه 1+5 گفت كه نمي داند آيا ايران به اين بسته پاسخ مثبت خواهد داد يا نه.

او همچنين گفت: "مقصود ما اين است كه نشان دهيم آمريكا به شدت حامي اين ديپلماسي و حامي متحدانش است. ما اميدوارم كه ايراني ها اين پيام ما را دريافت كنند."

مذاكره درباره ايران در تركيه

از سوي ديگر، وزارت امور خارجه تركيه اعلام كرده كه مشاور امنيت ملي جورج بوش، رئيس جمهور آمريكا در حال گفتگو درباره ايران است.

او گفته كه استفان هدلي با علي باباجان، وزير امور خارجه تركيه، ديدار كرده و قرار است با رجب طيب اردوغان، نخست وزير اين كشور نيز گفتگو كند.

آقاي باباجان گفته كه تركيه در هفته جاري ميزبان گفتگوهايي درباره پرونده هسته اي ايران خواهد بود.

[RedWine]

مذاكرات هسته*اي ايران در ژنو با حضور آمريكا


در مذاكرات ژنو، پاسخ ايران به بسته پيشنهادي مورد بررسي قرار مي گيرد
مذاكرات ايران و كشورهاي موسوم به پنج بعلاوه يك در حالي در ژنو سوئيس آغاز شده كه براي اولين بار آمريكا نيز ديپلماتي به اين مذاكرات اعزام كرده است.
گفتگوهاي سعيد جليلي، مذاكره كننده ارشد هسته اي ايران و خاوير سولانا، مسئول سياست خارجي اتحاديه اروپا با حضور ديپلمات هايي از آمريكا، بريتانيا، آلمان، فرانسه، چين و روسيه صورت مي گيرد.

يك ساعت پس از آغاز مذاكرات طرفين، يك عضو هيات اعزامي ايران بار ديگر موضع اين كشور مبني بر قابل قبول نبودن درخواست تعليق غني سازي را تكرار كرد.

تعليق فعاليت هاي غني سازي اورانيوم، خواسته اصلي اين كشورها از ايران است كه در ازاي آن مشوق هاي امنيتي، اقتصادي و سياسي به اين كشور داده مي شود اما ايران غني سازي را از جمله حقوق هسته اي خود دانسته و توقف و تعليق آن را رد كرده است.



حضور ويليام برنز، سومين ديپلمات ارشد آمريكا در اين گفتگوها، به گمان بسياري از كارشناسان، تغيير در سياست آمريكا در برابر ايران به شمار مي رود.
پس از انقلاب اسلامي در سال ۱۹۷۹ و گروگان گيري در سفارت آمريكا در تهران، دو كشور روابط ديپلماتيك را قطع كردند و از آن پس چنين رابطه اي برقرار نشده است.

تماس ميان مقام هاي دو كشور طي اين سال ها بسيار محدود بوده است. سال پيش سفراي دو كشور در آمريكا درباره مسايل امنيتي عراق به گفتگوهاي مستقيم روي آوردند.

ديويد ميليبند، وزير امور خارجه بريتانيا از حضور آقاي برنز در مذاكرات ژنو ابراز خشنودي كرده و گفته است كه اين حضور نشان مي دهد كه غرب به دنبال يك راه حل از طريق مذاكره است.

در مذاكرات ژنو، پاسخ ايران به بسته پيشنهادي مورد بررسي قرار مي گيرد.


سعيد جليلي و ويليام برنز در نشست ژنو

بتاني بل، خبرنگار بي بي سي كه در ژنو است، مي گويد ايراني ها ممكن است در مورد افزايش روند غني سازي تجديدنطر كنند.

ديپلمات ها به دنبال راه حل "تعليق در برابر تعليق" هستند. طبق اين روش، ايران فعاليت هاي غني سازي خود را گسترش نمي دهد و غرب نيز تحريم ها عليه ايران را شديدتر نمي كند.

مقام هاي ايراني ابراز اميدواري كرده اند كه اين مذاكرات به نتيجه مثبتي منجر شود.

اين مقام ها درباره حضور آمريكا در اين نشست واكنش نشان داده و سعيد جليلي، دبير شوراي عالي امنيت ملي گفته است: "بيش از اينكه چه افرادي حضور مي يابند، نوع رويكرد است كه اهميت دارد."

منوچهر متكي وزير خارجه ايران هم گفتگوهاي ژنو و حضور يك ديپلمات آمريكايي در اين مذاكرات را مثبت خوانده است.

گروه ۱+۵ با عضويت ايالات متحده، روسيه، چين، بريتانيا، فرانسه و آلمان رهبري تلاش هاي بين المللي براي حل بحران هسته اي ايران را برعهده دارد.

آمريكا پيش از اين تاكيد كرده بود تا زماني كه جمهوري اسلامي به قطعنامه هاي شوراي امنيت عمل نكند، در مذاكرات اين گروه با جمهوري اسلامي شركت نخواهد كرد.

قطعنامه هاي شوراي امنيت از ايران مي خواهد بخشي از فعاليت هاي هسته اي خود، به خصوص در زمينه غني سازي اورانيوم را تا زمان كسب اطمينان جامعه جهاني از صلح آميز بودن اين فعاليت ها به حالت تعليق در آورد.

با وجود وضع برخي تحريم هاي بين المللي عليه ايران، جمهوري اسلامي اين قطعنامه ها را رد كرده و با تاكيد بر ادامه غني سازي اورانيوم به عنوان حق انكار ناپذير اين كشور، به فعاليت خود در اين زمينه ادامه داده است.

[RedWine]

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran on Monday that it faced more sanctions if it defied a two-week deadline to agree to curb its nuclear program.

Rice said Iran was stalling and must give a "serious answer" within the deadline set by six world powers which offered trade and technical incentives if Tehran halts its uranium enrichment. The West fears Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb.

"We are in the strongest possible position to demonstrate that if Iran does not act then it is time to go back to that (sanctions) track," Rice said,

It was her first comment on the subject since Washington broke from usual policy and joined nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva on Saturday.

Rice, speaking to reporters on her way to Abu Dhabi en route to Asia, said the United States would impose more bilateral sanctions on Iran and the Europeans would look at what they could do if Iran failed to meet the world powers' demand.

"The main thing is we will have to start considering what we do in New York," she said, referring to the Security Council which has imposed three rounds of sanctions on Iran.

Envoys from the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain -- the so-called sextet of world powers -- attended the Geneva meeting.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, said at the next meeting Iran would not discuss the demand to freeze its sensitive atomic work which the West fears is aimed at making bombs. Iran says its aims are peaceful.
But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave an upbeat assessment on Sunday. "Any negotiation that takes place is a step forward," he told reporters, according to IRNA news agency.

A senior Iranian official said Iran was ready to respond to any positive U.S. overture but it was unclear whether Washington had decided between diplomacy and force.

The U.S. government was "indecisive about whether to lean on diplomacy or the military option", said Deputy Foreign Minister Alireza Sheikh-Attar, according to the student news agency ISNA on Monday.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, briefed by Jalili in Istanbul on Sunday, said: "There is no reason to be hopeless. The process continues but it would not be right to raise expectations too high."

NO MORE "SMALL TALK"

Rice said Iran's envoy to Saturday's talks, attended by senior U.S. diplomat William Burns, engaged in small talk rather than address the central issue of the sextet offer.

"I understand that it was at times meandering," Rice said.

She said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana "clarified" Iran's choices at the talks.

"It was also a very strong message to the Iranians that they can't go and stall and make small talk and talk about culture and that they have to make a decision," said Rice.
Burns will brief Rice during her one-night stopover in Abu Dhabi, where she will meet her counterparts from Gulf countries, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan on Monday to discuss Iran and other issues.

U.S. attendance at the Geneva talks was an about-face and comes as Washington is considering whether to open an interest section in Tehran, which would allow for diplomatic contact while falling short of diplomatic ties.

The United States broke ties with Iran nearly 30 years ago.

"We are always looking for ways to relate to the Iranian people and to make it easier for them to relate to us," said Rice. She said such a move should not be seen as a thawing of relations.

Rice said there were no plans to join further nuclear talks unless Iran met conditions to give up the enrichment work. She said the decision to join the Geneva talks was to show U.S. commitment to the incentives offer to Iran.

"I think we have done enough to demonstrate that the United States is serious and to assure our partners that we are serious and to show the Iranians that we are serious. I think we have done enough," Rice said.

[RedWine]

It might seem like the US consul setting up shop in Iran is only going to help those who need visas to avoid having to go to Dubai anymore. But as small overtures always do, they end up becoming far more than they started out to be. This time there seems to be a huge wave of good karma pointed at this latest ray of hope.

On one side you have the legitimizing effect of giving one of the most brutal and murderous empires Persia ever had, regional credibility, and the tough admission that the US policy of isolation for the past 30 years, was wrong.

On the other side, you now have the beginnings of the slow start to the discussion of what you expect Iran to become, namely the moderation of Iran towards the Western notion of what a "civilized country" is. Complete with a calm and mature dialog on what real democracy is.

Both sides of the coin have pros and cons, but there is also precisely the greater risk of pros and cons, or professional con artists on both sides who only want to outwit and out-gamble and outlive the other, regardless of the stakes.

Unfortunately there is no indication that the used car salesmen on both sides, eager to sell their countries long term interests for their own short term gains, are capable of putting aside their greed and ambitions long enough to bring about the kind of idealistic fairy tale relationship of peace that the people of Iran and the US dream of.

Proof? The meetings have been and will continue to be behind closed doors and we the people, will never hear any actual live dialog of the talks openly, and the resulting press conference afterwards will describe the goings on as merely "cordial and productive".

Just enough to give the people hope, keep them docile, and waiting.

For now though we Iranians and Americans sit and wait and hope that somehow, out of this usual den of suspect vipers, good will finally find a way.

[RedWine]

If you favor a forward, nonviolent strategy to tackle the Middle Eastern challenges of the 21st century, “diplomacy” is the only game in town. To illustrate my claim that, for us liberals of the Middle East, talk or negotiation with adversaries has become the only alternative for ending a row that has triggered regional tension, I shall discuss the recent shift in the US policy toward Iran.

When Senator Barack Obama expressed his readiness to pursue diplomacy with America’s adversaries should he win the November election, President Bush was quick to denounce such plans to engage the enemy, saying: “We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

On the contrary, various other great politicians—political figures who wanted to refrain from war—have done that. One of the key turning points in the peace process in the Middle East was Anwar Sadat’s momentous journey to Jerusalem in 1977 to meet face-to-face with Menachem Begin. Another notable diplomatic breakthrough was the establishment of diplomatic relations between the US and Communist China. This was surely the result of Henry Kissinger’s and Richard Nixon’s readiness to go to Beijing for direct negotiations with Mao Zedong.

The attendance of Under Secretary of State William Burns in the Geneva talks is, indeed, a sign of not appeasement, but of realism. It is a crack in the US diplomatic door for giving negotiation a chance, or as the Middle Eastern proverb has it: “When the head of the camel enters the tent, the rest of it is bound to follow.”

I can crudely sum up the six-hour meeting by saying that the six world powers asked Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment for a so-called “freeze-for-freeze” offer which, boiled down to its essence says: you suspend your nuclear activities; at the same time we refrain from any new Security Council resolution on sanctions; plus, we work out a multilateral deal to develop nuclear energy for your civilian purpose, and lifting of sanctions.

The Iranians, who are, to put it mildly, still going strong, insisted that “suspension - there is no chance for that.” At the meeting, Iranians did not give a yes-or-no answer to the proposed "freeze-for-freeze" offer. At the same time they urged Western powers not turn away from negotiations. The six diplomats gave Iran two weeks to come up with answer, emphasizing that the given time-period is not an ultimatum.

The Iranian response seems to cancel out the desirability of negotiation over “military confrontation” in resolving the nuclear crisis by providing ammunition for those who advocate that diplomacy as a mean to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear bomb has always been a fantasy: “It will take military means.” In commenting over the US attendance in the Geneva talk, John Bolton, a neoconservative and Mr Bush’s former Ambassador to the UN, told The Times: “This is a complete U-turn and very disappointing to say the least.” (…) “Under the freeze-for-freeze deal Iran only has to not increase its nuclear material. This is an acknowledgment and validation of its existing enrichment activities.”


Of course, proposals to bring nuclear programs under multilateral supervision are neither new nor few in number. What is new is the political space that has recently emerged and become ripped for the implementation of any of these alternative plans. This new political space represents three objective conditions and one subjective one.

First, the December National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) said Tehran had halted development of nuclear weapons in 2003. Moreover, the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report suggests that progress has been made by Iran.

Second, the improvement in US–Iranian relations over Iraq policy, which was the result of direct talks, has given a great boost to the American surge strategy in Iraq.

Third, the failure of the strategy of containment and sanctions to persuade Iran to halt uranium enrichment in line with Security Council demands. Nicholas Burns, US undersecretary of state, believes that “Iran’s work on enrichment - which can produce both nuclear fuel and weapons grade material - was “outpacing” the sanctions.” This is because Iranian political elites rightly believe in what Nietzsche once said: What does not kill me, makes me stronger!

Fourth, for good reason, if all credible experts on Iran and the Middle East agree on anything it is this: offer Iran a chance for a resumed relationship (Ray Takeyh and Joseph Cirincione); make a direct, unconditional talks between Washington and Tehran (Reuel Marc Gerecht); and, the reward of such negotiations will be a more stable and peaceful Middle East (William Luers, Thomas R. Pickering, Jim Walsh).

Napoleon once said to understand the policy of a country, look at the map. Unlike most states in the region, Iran was not born this century. It is the world’s second-oldest state after China. If the US offers Iran nothing but sticks, the Iranians are going to say, “Screw you and the horse you rode in on.”