Thanks to long-standing resentments, fears and suspicions of the US policies in the Middle East, the allegations that 24 Iraqi civilians were massacred by US Marines in the town of Haditha last November and a subsequent cover-up has attracted far greater attention in the region than the continuing Iranian nuclear saga. The fact is that the Iranian nuclear issue is of far greater importance for the safety and security of the region than the outrage at Haditha, which, if true, serves only to put beyond doubt what is already known — that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has been incompetently handled from the start.
Although, it seemed that the US government also is focused, as its military, in shooting first and taking names later when earlier this month Washington dismissed out of hand Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s barrier-breaking (in if not also extremely long-winded) letter to President Bush, the new offer of direct talks with Iran on its nuclear plans carries a different message. It is a major turnaround. The fact that it is almost certainly the result of pressure from the British, French and Germans governments, which have been negotiating with Tehran on the issue and which were extremely unhappy with Washington’s earlier response, is now of academic interest only. What is important is that an offer to talk has been made, even though it is couched in language that could invite Iran’s rejection. That offer and President Bush’s belief the problem can be solved diplomatically and that he is “going to give it every effort to do so” are extremely welcome. Both sides are laying the path of dialogue.
The response from Iran is equally encouraging after the initial dismay at the militant words from Teheran’s oil minister, Sayed Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh, that Iran would never talk to the US; speaking in Caracas to almost certainly anti-American ears, he was evidently not party to discussions back home. The official response, from Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki could not be more different, not merely saying yes to dialogue but actively “welcoming” it providing conditions are right.
The accompanying tough language about the US needing to change its attitude and the insistence that Iran will not abandon it nuclear rights can be seen as diplomatic positioning of the sort that always accompanies the beginning of a bargaining process. Far more important is that Iran is willing to talk as well. It takes only two to talk, and both are edging gingerly to the table.
It is of course possible that Ahmadinejad’s letter to Bush was a ploy to embarrass and isolate the US, the expectation being that it would reject the overture, as it initially did. Tehran may not have anticipated Washington’s rethink. Whether that is so or not, events have taken on a life of their own, pulling the two down the saner road of diplomacy. It is largely due to pressure from other parties — the UN, the EU as well as Turkey, Malaysia and other Muslim countries. The pressure will almost certainly have to be kept up to ensure that dialogue happens, and bears fruit — unlike the less diplomatic efforts the US has undertaken in neighboring Iraq.
