US
Administration Rejects Iran’s
Offer Of “Serious Negotiations”
By Peter Symonds
24 August 2006
World
Socialist Web
The Bush administration yesterday
signalled its rejection of Iran’s offer of “serious negotiations,”
setting the stage for punitive economic sanctions and an escalating
confrontation with Tehran.
The US response came just
a day after Tehran issued a lengthy formal reply to a package of proposals
on Iran’s nuclear programs made by the five permanent UN Security
Council members plus Germany in June. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino
announced Wednesday that the Iranian response “falls short of
the conditions set by the Security Council”.
The US pushed a resolution
through the UN Security Council on July 31 setting the end of August
as the deadline for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment programs
and agree to intrusive inspection of all its nuclear facilities. Washington’s
ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, declared on Tuesday, prior to reading
the Iranian document, that the US was prepared to “move rapidly”
for a new UN resolution imposing sanctions on Iran if it failed to halt
its nuclear programs.
The Bush administration has
never shown the slightest interest in talks with Iran. When Bush and
his officials speak of “a diplomatic solution” to the conflict,
it does not entail negotiating with Tehran, but rather bullying the
other members of the UN Security Council into setting ultimatums and
agreeing to sanctions. The package of economic incentives drawn up with
US approval to induce Iran to shut down its nuclear programs was on
a “take it, or leave it” basis.
As several commentators have
noted, Washington never seriously supported the joint package, refusing
to include a US security guarantee in return for a halt to uranium enrichment—one
of Iran’s key demands. An article on the Asia Times website on
August 24 entitled “US made an offer Iran can only refuse”
commented: “The US has never been prepared to give such [security]
guarantees, and thus ended what appeared on the surface to be a genuine
multilateral initiative for negotiations with Iran... the history of
the international proposal shows that the Bush administration was determined
from the beginning that it would fail....”
While details of Iran’s
21-page document have not been released, Tehran’s approach is
far more in line with the norms of international diplomacy. It is likely
that Iran has offered to discuss a suspension of its uranium enrichment
activities, as proposed by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki last
week, but is unwilling to give up what it regards as its bargaining
chips in advance of negotiations. US officials flatly rejected Mottaki’s
comments, insisting that nothing short of complete compliance with the
UN resolution was acceptable.
Iran has repeatedly stated
that its programs are not for nuclear weapons, but nuclear power. It
has insisted on its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) to research and develop all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle
for peaceful purposes, including uranium enrichment, and branded the
UN resolution passed last month as “illegal”. Tehran has
previously offered not only to ratify the so-called additional protocol
allowing highly invasive inspections by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), but also to discuss additional safeguards to ensure its
nuclear programs are not used for weapons purposes.
While it cannot be ruled
out that sections of the Iranian regime have ambitions to become a nuclear
power, the Bush administration has not offered any evidence to support
its claims that such weapons programs are underway. Three years of IAEA
investigations have failed to uncover any proof that Iran is constructing
an atomic weapon. US claims that Iran has previously not declared all
nuclear facilities ignores the fact that for more than two decades Washington
has attempted to block every Iranian nuclear program, including the
completion of its power reactor at the port of Bushehr.
The Bush administration’s
aggressive stance against Iran’s nuclear activities has only ever
been a pretext for its broader aim of “regime change” in
Tehran, as part of its ambitions for US dominance throughout the resource-rich
Middle East and Central Asian regions. As veteran journalist Seymour
Hersh explained in a recent article in the New Yorker, the US was intimately
involved in the Israeli offensive in southern Lebanon, which the White
House regarded as the preparation for a wider war against Iran and Syria.
Well aware that the US is
casting around for a casus belli for possible military action against
Iran, the other major powers have only reluctantly supported the US
stance in the UN. Earlier this year, Britain, France and Germany fell
into line with US calls for sanctions, no doubt hoping to protect their
interests in the Middle East by retaining a say in any measures imposed
against Tehran. Russia and China have opposed any punitive action against
Iran and only supported last month’s UN resolution when it was
modified to exclude automatic sanctions. Unlike the US, which has had
virtually no economic relations with Tehran since the overthrow of Shah
Reza Pahlavi in 1979, all the other powers have substantial economic
interests in Iran.
In the wake of Iran’s
announcement on Tuesday, these divisions have again opened up. US officials
were due to meet informally with their European counterparts on Wednesday
in New York to discuss the Iranian proposal and their response. Russia
and China, which did not attend, have both initially called for further
negotiations with Tehran. While French Foreign Minister Phillipe Douste-Blazy
declared it was “now or never” for Iran to cooperate, the
Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a statement reiterating its call for
“a peaceful resolution... through diplomatic talks”.
The Bush administration’s
aggressive strategy remains unchanged: to pressure the UN Security Council
into imposing provocative sanctions against Tehran and to increase funding
for Iranian opposition groups to undermine and destabilise the Iranian
regime, while at the same time preparing for military action against
Iran and Syria. Even while nominally supporting the joint international
package of incentives offered to Iran, discussions continued in the
Pentagon as the best means for attacking Iran.
In an article in the New
Yorker last month entitled “Last Stand”, Seymour Hersh again
detailed the debates in the White House and Pentagon over the efficacy
of massive air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, cities and
infrastructure. Quite apart from Bush’s public warnings, Hersh
noted: “There was an unspoken threat: the US Strategic Command,
supported by the Air Force, has been drawing up plans, at the President’s
direction, for a major bombing campaign in Iran.”
There is no doubt that Israel’s
humiliating failure to achieve a quick victory of Hezbollah in southern
Lebanon was a major setback not only to Tel Aviv, but also to Washington.
The Israeli offensive, despite its overwhelming and merciless use of
force, failed to destroy Hezbollah’s ability to fight back and
as a result boosted its prestige and that of Iran in Lebanon and throughout
the region. The American position in the Middle East has also been weakened
by the deepening disasters confronting the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan,
as well as concern over the impact of any war on Iran on oil prices
and the world economy.
Hersh pointed to the concern
in the US about the potential dangers. “Inside the Pentagon, senior
commanders have increasingly challenged the President’s [military]
plans, according to active-duty and retired officers and officials.
The generals and admirals have told the Administration that the bombing
campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear
program. They have also warned an attack could lead to serious economic,
political and military consequences for the Middle East.”
It would be wrong, however,
to conclude that the White House will not adopt a reckless and criminal
course of military action in Iran, as it did in neighbouring Iraq. The
thinking of the most hawkish elements of the Bush administration was
outlined by Michael Ledeen from the right-wing American Enterprise Institute.
In an article on August 14, he berated the critics of the invasions
of Iraq and Lebanon for “a failure of strategic vision”
and declared that a broader regional campaign against Iran and Syria
was required.
“Israel cannot destroy
Hezbollah by fighting in Lebanon alone, just as we cannot provide Iraq
and Afghanistan with decent security by fighting only there. The destruction
of Hezbollah requires regime change in Damascus. Security in Iraq and
Afghanistan requires regime change in Damascus and Tehran. Lebanon,
Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan are not separate conflicts. They are battlefields
in a regional war,” Ledeen declared.
Ledeen’s remarks graphically
set out the logic of unending military aggression that is inherent in
the US doctrine of “preventative war” and plans for hegemony
throughout the Middle East.