Global News Journal
Beyond the World news headlines
Iran Geneva talks: whose interpretation will triumph?
Was the meeting in Geneva filled with “meandering” small talk? Or did the discussions between world powers and Iran begin work on an intricately woven carpet, that in time, would yield an “elegant and durable” outcome?
The two views, the first voiced by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the second by chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, say much about how the two foes approached Saturday’s meeting to resolve Iran’s long-running nuclear row with the West.
It may also indicate prospects for a deal between officials from the “Great Satan” and “Axis of Evil”, who have spent so long without diplomatic ties that they have forgotten what makes the other one tick — while trust has all but vanished.
Perhaps the result of Saturday’s meeting (Iran, it was announced, did not give a clear answer to demands by world powers) was clear before officials sat round the table.
Those who watched the scene in Geneva saw U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns enter with a demeanour that did little to suggest a man who really wanted to be there.
If history was on his mind, he had little reason to be encouraged. Talks to try to get Iran to halt the most sensitive part of nuclear work, uranium enrichment, have gone nowhere since Tehran tore up a previous suspension deal with the European Union in 2005. The United States saw this as a sign Tehran was bent on producing a nuclear bomb, despite Iran’s insistence that it was just exercising its right to develop the technology needed to make electricity.
The Iranians also offered little reassurance before Jalili sat down in front of the six world powers and their representative, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana. Shortly before discussions began, an official told Reuters bluntly: “Any kind of suspension or freeze is out of the question.”
Iran – a young revolution with plenty of life?
In the late 1990s, not long after pro-reform politician Mohammad Khatami swept to a landslide victory in the Iranian presidential elections, some Western observers started wondering if this was the step that would herald a collapse of the Islamic Republic — rather like the Soviet Union tumbled on Mikhail Gorbachev’s watch a decade earlier.
It was early days for me observing Iran. But an acquaintance of mine offered some analysis. Iran is not communist Europe. It is still a young revolution, he told me (at a time when it was turning 20). There are still plenty of Iranians willing to die for the cause. Don’t expect it to come crashing down, he said.
It turns out he was right. After Khatami’s two terms, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected to office in 2005. It is hard to think of a man more dedicated to Iran’s revolutionary cause. To be fair, it may have been his extravagant economic promises that played a bigger part in winning him the vote than his ideological credentials. But whatever the reason for swinging the election in his favour, the result is very much with us.
Why does this matter now? Well, there are people apparently working to try and drive the Islamic Republic into oblivion. According to Seymour Hersh writing in the New Yorker, those in the White House are at the top of the list.
So the question is: does what my acquaintance told me in the late 1990s hold true 10 years later? In a country where opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate — or simply don’t exist — judging popular opinion is a mug’s game. But an anecdote may give at least one aspect of the story.
Farhad Rahimi, in his 30s, is a member of the voluntary Basij militia. Speaking at a time when double-digit inflation was biting into his taxi driver’s salary, he was still a fervent supporter of Ahmadinejad’s policy of sharing out Iran’s oil wealth more fairly. He could list a few of what he said were the president’s mistakes.
But he’d seen transformations in villages, he told me, even if he and others in Tehran were seeing few of the benefits. He still lives with his mum and dad because he can’t afford a home of his own. Rahimi was not preaching to me. He was speaking calmly and cogently — and surprisingly openly — to a Western reporter.
Iran is run by a bunch of harsh, ruthless, sexist (‘ists’ in every conceivable form) extremists.
The brutal way it holds down its people indicates an insecure authoritarian regime of outrageous human rights abuses.
That women have very few rights is an outrage and an affront to humanity.
It has no moral authority because it is championing the very worst of its religious edicts, and thereby cannot be taken seriously in the human rights department.
Iran’s nuclear policy: what lies beneath?
There is a running joke among Western journalists, diplomats and other foreigners based in Iran who have the task of trying to understand what is going on behind the scenes: the longer you stay here, the more opaque Iranian policy making becomes.
It may be said lightheartedly, but it contains more than a grain of truth. The longer you spend trying to peel back the layers of the Iranian establishment to understand what the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is thinking, the more layers you discover.
And, frankly, as a Westerner — and even for Iranian journalists — there’s a very real limit to how many layers you are ever going to penetrate.
But penetrate you must because it’s Khamenei’s thinking that is the key.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be the most public — and often most worrying to Western capitals — voice out there. But he is just one of the layers. One constituency contributing towards consensus. When national decisions are taken, however, Khamenei will be behind them.
So determining Iran’s nuclear policy, the most sensitive of issues in the Islamic Republic, often seems to present more questions than answers. Does Iran want negotiations that will end the standoff with the West? Or is talking just a way to buy time to master nuclear technology? Has the establishment calculated that it can survive military strikes on its nuclear facilities? Or is it looking for the “red line” so it can pull back from the brink at the last minute? And, perhaps, one of the more worrying questions is: does the Islamic Republic know where that “red line” to prevent military action really is?
There are analysts who look at Washington and say, after more than a quarter of century without an embassy in Tehran, the U.S. ability to understand Iranian policy calculations has been deeply eroded. But the same too can be said of Iran, which under the shah was — Israel aside — Washington’s closest ally in the Middle East but now is a sworn enemy. Set together, the possibility that both sides will end up talking past each other is real.
As a journalist, of course you’re bound with restrictions and can not write/say everything you really have in your mind.
I think, it would be better to ask whether Iranian authorities seeking for a confrontation instead of talking about “red lines”.
You are right about “various layers”. I call it as “spider net” spread around Iran’s leadership, so decision makers can not have enough flexibility and need to drink a glass of poison – as revolution founder Khomeini did – instead of diplomatic maneuver. The question is whether we have another brave person to drink another galss? or prefer to move as fast as they can without leaving a chance for coming back.
Having a brief look at the Islamic Republic’s performance during the past 3 decades, you can easily find that the ruling people do not so much care about Iranian people and their interests. They more care about their own power both inside and outside the country.
Their logic is quite different from your logic … so you can not find their tactics in this chess game upon your known tactics.
Put yourself in their position and see what they look for in this game.
regards
I agree with John’s sentiments regarding Iran’s right. I too, have served as a U.S. Marine, and am a born and raised American. I am also a converted Muslim….
5pillar.wordpress.com