Who will benefit more from U.S.-Iran talks?

15/05/2007

By Amina Anderson

"Iran has agreed to talk to the U.S. side over Iraq, in Iraq, in order to relieve the pain of the Iraqi people, to support the government and to reinforce security in Iraq," Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini announced on Sunday.

The talks, whose date and venue aren’t yet known, would represent the first time that Iranian and American officials sit together face-to-face since Washington severed diplomatic ties with Tehran following the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979.

The negotiations come at a critical time as the two countries step up rhetoric against each other, with the U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney warning Iran aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Gulf that Washington is ready to use its naval power to curb Tehran’s nuclear plans and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responding by threatening to retaliate severely to any possible U.S. attack.

Although the two sides stress that the contacts would be “about Iraq and only Iraq”, in the words of White House spokesman Tony Snow, officials from both countries hope the direct talks may act as a catalyst for future discussions on a broad range of issues that could pave the way for a long-term bilateral process.

Ironically, Iran and the U.S. have common interests in the region.

Both countries back the Iraqi government, and both want to establish stability in Iraq. This is why Tehran always denies U.S. allegations that it’s fueling the violence in the war-torn country.

Despite the Bush administration’s insistence that the planned talks didn’t presage a retreat from a three-decade-old U.S. policy to isolate the Islamic Republic, Iranian officials hailed Washington’s request to hold talks with Tehran as recognition that Iran is a major player in the Middle East. Others said the talks could eventually lead to further negotiations over the nuclear standoff.

“It has been proved internationally that the problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Middle East cannot be solved without Iran... The Americans are at last obliged to recognize Iran as an effective player in the region,” according to an editorial on Iran News.

On the other hand, U.S. officials consider the talks as the best avenue for stabilizing Iraq. “I was heartened to see that the United States and Iran are finally, evidently, going to sit down and talk. I've been calling for engagement with Iran for four years,” Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said.

Iran’s former deputy foreign minister Mohammad Sadr agreed, saying: “The U.S. is realistic in its foreign policy and is seeking solutions for its problems in Iraq, and Iran is one of these solutions.”

But he said that “negotiation over Iraq will have no effect on Iran’s nuclear dossier, and that’s why I suggest that the negotiations should be comprehensive, because on the one hand the U.S. feels a need for Iran’s help in Iraq and on the other hand it is seriously pursuing its plan for a new UN resolution expanding sanctions on Iran.”

Whether Washington likes it or not, Tehran is a major regional power with great influence in the region, Iranian analysts say. If the U.S. accepts this as a fact, both countries could build trust and resolve other disputes. But if Washington only wants to use Tehran as a tool to reduce the growing discontent at home over the Iraq war in order to pretend that it’s seeking every possible way to withdraw from Iraq, without making some goodwill gestures towards Iran, this will be interpreted as an insincere move which will only lead to more distrust between the two countries.

The U.S. Republicans are seeking to prevent Iraq from becoming a new Vietnam, and one of the ways out of the Iraqi quagmire is negotiating with Iran, said Mohammad-Ali Abtahi, an aide to former president Mohammad Khatami.

“Given Iran’s importance in the region and the country’s deep influence over Iraq, the U.S. should back down from its anti-Iranian position, especially in regard to Iran’s nuclear program,” he added.

Meanwhile, political expert Amir Mohebbian says the talks will only benefit the United States. If Washington believes that Tehran is capable of creating a better situation in Iraq and improving regional security, which would greatly benefit the U.S., the White House should also act positively towards Tehran, he says.

An editorial on Iranian newspaper, Tehran-E-Emruz, also argued that the Islamic Republic has nothing to gain from the talks, while the United States will certainly win. “If the situation in Iraq improves after negotiations, America will claim that Iran was the root of the insecurity and if Iraq becomes more insecure, the Americans will say that it's useless negotiating with Iran. So in both scenarios, America will achieve its aims."