In two weeks, the period it has been granted, Iran might make known its intentions on its nuclear plans, and hence the future of its tenuous links with the US. The talks in Geneva did not result in Iran’s accepting the so-called “freeze for freeze” deal — a halt in its uranium enrichment in return for no strengthening of UN sanctions. There is no guarantee that at the end of the deadline, Iran will decide, as expressed by the US, between confrontation and cooperation. But after all the threats and counterthreats in recent weeks, the very fact that Iran and the US got together at one table for the first time concerning the nuclear issue represents a huge turnaround for both sides and provides distinct signs that a collision course is being averted.
By agreeing to send Undersecretary of State William Burns to Geneva to join talks between the EU and Iran, Washington has shown what has been acknowledged from the outset: Any realistic solution to the nuclear crisis must involve active US engagement. And President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s pronouncement that he was interested in direct talks with the US, and interested in the idea of a US diplomatic mission being opened in Tehran for the first time since the 1979 revolution, constitutes a remarkable U-turn. These are major shifts by both the Bush administration and Iran and look light years away from the recent rhetoric and threats.
There are, of course, those who still expect the US or Israel or both to launch a military strike on Iran, but the recent peace overtures are persuading more people into realizing that international, regional and local considerations weigh too heavily against such a military adventure. The US cannot embark on a major military operation while its forces are bogged down in Iraq, tensions everywhere else in the region are rife, and many of the US’ allies in the region are opposed to the military option. In addition, a military strike against Iran would wreak havoc on the already troublesome energy situation as Iran sits on a huge oil reserve of its own and overlooks the world’s most important transit route for oil. Also in favor of at least a cooling down in tensions between the US and Iran is the fact that other international powers, most notably Moscow, are disinclined toward a military strike, even if they are not necessarily opposed to an escalation of international sanctions against Tehran.
As tenacious and willing to go to the brink as Iranian leaders may appear, in the final analysis they are consummately pragmatic. Iran is a modern institutionalized state, and while it has the elements of a theocracy, it is ultimately rational and capable of placing the welfare of the whole above all other considerations. Before reaching the stage of no return, the “rational camp” in Tehran would put the breaks on, halting the brinksmanship tendencies evinced by Ahmadinejad. The repercussions for Iran, regionally and internationally, would be too great. Iran holds too many political and economic cards that Washington is interested in, and the people in Tehran know that Washington holds many of the keys that will unlock their ambitions.
What has been said and done have not been figments of the imagination. The recent Israeli military exercise, apparently a rehearsal for bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities; the Iranian test-firing of missiles in reply; Iran’s threat to block the Strait of Hormuz, the lifeline of the world’s oil supplies, if attacked were all real and had — and still have — the world watching and worrying. However, for at least the moment, diplomacy has taken over.
