The moves Iran is making to narrow the differences with the United States are increasing by the day but have yet to receive the reciprocity such steps deserve. Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations has said Tehran wants to work directly with the United States on an “easily attainable” resolution, while the country’s former Parliament speaker on Saturday urged direct talks with the United States to break down the “walls of mistrust.” Another top official, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed El-Baradei, has mentioned Iran’s interest in bilateral talks to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Iran, which has had no diplomatic relations with the US since 1979, has even turned to Greece as a middleman to convey its messages to the United States. Washington, however, has been ice cold to the overtures, which must include President Ahmadinejad’s recent letter to President Bush which went unanswered. The United States needs to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, but Washington has preferred to let France, Germany and Britain talk instead while it sharpens its rhetoric on sanctions and military options. While the dispute is affecting countries worldwide and may in fact need an international, multilateral approach, it is in the end, shaping up to be a bilateral issue — one in which one party is currently expressing a willingness to talk while the other refuses.
If Iran is part of the problem, then it is nothing but logical that it be incorporated into the solution. Tehran will not give up the right to produce nuclear fuel. And if it is for peaceful purposes, then Washington must acknowledge that Iran has a right to nuclear technology under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the same time, Iran must not be unwilling to change its ways. Iran ended its cooperation with the IAEA in February, and that included ending surprise inspections of its nuclear facilities. Iran must acknowledge that it has a responsibility not to pursue nuclear weapons. Its nuclear program must be monitored by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Iran and the US do talk, or at least have expressed a willingness to begin a dialogue focusing on Iraq. US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has said that he was ready to talk with the Iranians about their relationship with Baghdad. And Rice went on Arab television the other day to say that Washington recognizes Iran’s role in Iraq.
If talk on Iraq is fine, why then is it not so fine to discuss the N-word, an issue of no less importance? Or is the United States happy to receive help when it comes to Iraq, ready to listen even to a foe, but unwilling to hear the same party, as soon as the subject changes? The recent overtures have presented an unprecedented momentum toward possible one-on-one contact between Tehran and Washington. The Iranians have made it clear that they want dialogue, and they are using every available means to deliver that message. The trouble is that the other side is not being amenable.
