Consensus and Complicity
// US-Iran Talks: Necessary, Useful, and Possibly Even Surprising
Why are the American and Iranian ambassadors sitting at the negotiating table? Because neither Washington nor Tehran has any wiggle room left – the relations between them have run into an absolute dead end, from which they must find a way out.
The most important thing is not what the representatives of the two countries are talking about in Baghdad, but what they're not talking about. First of all, they're not talking about the Iranian nuclear program, which, as we all know, is creating the biggest brouhaha in Iran's relationship with the rest of the world. Secondly, they're not talking about the situation in the Middle East, specifically, about Hezbollah – the politically-minded terrorist organization that is one of the most important factors in the situation not only in Lebanon but in the whole of the Middle East.
What is the result of all of this? That the American-Iranian talks can be taken absolutely at face value.
What else could the conversation in Baghdad touch upon? First, that Iran is supplying weapons to extremists in Iraq. Can they come to an agreement on that issue? I think they can. Of course, only after long, exhausting negotiations, but in principle some kind of definite consensus could be achieved. The conversation in Baghdad could also touch on American support for the Iranian opposition in Iraq.
Can the Americans make concessions to President Ahmadinejad? Of course they can. There are two general questions: first, the presence of Americans in Iraq; and second, the withdrawal of the troops. Strangely enough, there are grounds for mutual understanding. The Americans understand that they need to leave Iraq at some point. And the Iranians understand that if the Americans leave, the further evolution of the situation in Iraq will be unclear.
There is yet another nontrivial aspect. The subject of strikes against Iran has been pushed into the background of the unfolding negotiations. Otherwise, it would be pretty funny: take a seat at the negotiating table and immediately wield the possibility of military strikes. I am certain that after the talks, no matter how they end, the Iranians will of course declare themselves the victors and say that they are the ones who profited from the negotiations.
And what could the Americans achieve? Mainly, in agreeing to negotiations, the Republicans that are running America are demonstrating their flexibility – after all, they are constantly being accused of having a rigid position on Iraq and being incapable of working with Tehran. So here you go: a dialogue, if you please. So the Americans as well, no matter how the negotiations end, can present them as their own personal victory.
And, finally, a postscript. Since Russia is complicit in the entire situation surrounding Iran, i.e., its nuclear program, the question arises: what will Moscow do? If the talks continue and the contacts have some kind of follow-up, then Russia's role will decrease. Until now, Russia has been in the special position of being able to act as a mediator between Iran and America. But now if it turns out that the Americans and Iranians are standing on the threshold of a process of negotiations, that they have entered into a direct relationship, Moscow will clearly have to review its own tactics.
Alexei Malashenko of the Carnegie Center Moscow
All the Article in Russian as of May 29, 2007
|
