Is the Obama
Administration set to reorient U.S. policy toward Iran as fundamentally as the
Nixon Administration reoriented U.S. policy toward the People’s Republic of
China in the early 1970s?
The chances of this
happening increased this week after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington is ready
for bilateral talks if Tehran is “ever ready.”
Speaking at a gala
dinner for American and Israeli officials, experts and diplomats at the Saban
Center for Middle East Policy on Friday night, Clinton stressed
the Obama administration is prepared for bilateral talks with the Islamic
Republic.
For now, she said
Washington is working with members of the so-called P-5+1 group of major powers
-- Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States -- to resume
talks with Iran about its nuclear program.
Responding to a
question from the audience on Iran after delivering her opening remarks,
Clinton said:
“We are deeply engaged
in consultations right now with our P-5+1 colleagues, looking to put together a
presentation for the Iranians at the next meeting that does make it clear we’re
running out of time, we’ve got to get serious, here are issues we are willing
to discuss with you, but we expect reciprocity.
“Now, I would also add that
we have, from the very beginning, made it clear to the Iranians we are open to
a bilateral discussion. And we have tried. You know the President tried to
reach out. Dennis Ross is here. He was instrumental in those first two years in
trying to create some kind of opportunity for dialogue on the nuclear issue. So
far there has not yet been any meeting of the minds on that. But we remain
open.
“And we’ve certainly
tried quite hard in the P-5+1 context to have a bilateral discussion, and
they’ve not been willing to do so. But we understand that it may take pushing
through that obstacle to really get them fully responsive to whatever the P-5+1
offer might be.
“Right now, we’re
working on the P-5+1 and making our willingness known that we’re ready to have
a bilateral discussion if they’re ever ready to engage.”
Tariq Alhomayed, the
editor-in-chief of Saudi Arabia’s leading daily Asharq Alawsat is incensed by the
unexpected U.S. offer, writing today:
“What will the
negotiations be about? You only need to ponder Reuters’ dispatch about Mrs.
Clinton’s remarks concerning America’s readiness to negotiate directly with
Iran.
“The agency wrote: ‘In
October, diplomats had said they were considering asking Iran for stricter
limits on its nuclear program in exchange for an easing of sanctions in a
long-shot approach aimed at yielding a solution that has eluded them for a
decade. One option could be for each side to put more on the table -- both in terms of demands and possible
rewards -- than in previous meetings in a bid to break the stalemate…
“It is important to underscore
the words ‘demands’
and ‘rewards’
because they are key. Among Iran’s principal demands and rewards is to have a
role in the region at the expense of our [pan-Arab] nation and interests.
That’s exactly what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed during his
last trip to New York. He said he could envisage Iranians and Americans
cooperating to maintain the security of the Arabian Gulf.
“Of course, the Iranians
had previously mentioned [cooperation in] Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is an
open secret.
“Tehran is tirelessly active
throughout the region, trying to enhance its negotiating position. The Arabs
concerned, on the other hand, are busy tackling flashpoints instigated by
Iranian hands.
“The answer to the
question (What will the negotiations be about?) is simple: Iran and the United
States will haggle over our heads, over the region, and of course over the
Gulf. Sadly, this is absolutely the case. That is Iran’s strategic objective:
hegemony by means of nuclear capabilities or negotiations.
“America’s conduct is
lax and focused exclusively on the security of Israel.
“The Americans wish to proceed
at minimal risk. It is a shortsighted view, for which they will pay sooner or later.
Are the Arabs generally and the Gulfites in particular aware?”
I must say Clinton may
have fired the opening shot for the so-called “Grand Bargain” that
would put all the principal bilateral differences between Washington and Tehran
on the table at the same time and agree to resolve them as a package.
The Grand Bargain would for
instance put on the table: Iran’s
nuclear program, its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its leverage in Syria,
Iraq, Afghanistan and even Yemen, its ambition to resume the role of U.S.-backed
policeman of the Gulf, and its
hostility towards Israel.
In exchange, Iran would probably ask Washington for security guarantees, the
full recognition of its legitimate interests, influence and status in the
region, the lifting of investment,
financial and trade sanctions,
accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and a promise never to push for regime change.
