From the Los Angeles Times
U.S. plan to meet with Iran heightens debate
Critics say the decision to attend nuclear
talks may enable Tehran to further stonewall the Bush administration.
By Paul Richter
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 17, 2008
WASHINGTON —
The Bush administration's decision to abandon a long-held policy and
meet with a top Iranian official on Tehran's nuclear program has
intensified the political debate in Washington about how best to deal
with America's adversaries.
The White House decision was hailed Wednesday by Barack Obama, the
presumed Democratic presidential nominee, who has criticized Republican
rival John McCain and President Bush for spurning high-level talks with
Iran in the past. Obama said the United States should "stay involved
with the full strength of our diplomacy."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), defeated by Bush in the 2004 presidential
election, said the move represented "the most welcome flip-flop in
recent diplomatic history."
Administration officials disclosed Tuesday that Undersecretary of State
William J. Burns would join a delegation from five other world powers
to meet with Iranian nuclear envoy Saeed Jalili in Switzerland on
Saturday. U.S. officials and their allies hope Iran announces a
decision on a package of political and economic incentives offered in
return for abandoning its nuclear ambitions.
The move marked a distinct shift from the administration's position
that it would take part in talks with Tehran only if the Islamic regime
first suspended uranium enrichment, which U.S. officials say is
intended to produce a nuclear bomb but which Iran insists is for
peaceful energy production.
Democrats interpreted the White House move as one that provided new
support for Obama's approach, but the McCain campaign saw it
differently. In a statement, McCain foreign policy aide Randy
Scheunemann suggested that Bush's move was the kind of "multilateral
diplomacy" McCain supports.
"Sen. McCain believes working with our allies presents the best chance
to increase the consequences should Iran continue its defiance of the
international community," the statement said, criticizing Obama for
proposing what Scheunemann called "preemptive concessions."
Administration officials insisted that the initiative was not a
substantive change, but a tactic designed to increase pressure on the
Iranians to accept the offer. Burns, they say, will be present but will
not negotiate.
"There's no change in the substance, but it sends a strong signal,"
said Sean McCormack, the chief State Department spokesman.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice believes that "it's a smart step to
take" at a time when Iranian leaders appear divided on how to deal with
growing economic sanctions.
Some outside experts speculated that Iran's goal may simply be to wait
out the administration, in the hope that the next U.S. government will
prove more flexible.
Ray Takeyh, an expert on Iran at the Council on Foreign Relations, said
the seeming differences within the Iranian regime might be "chatter"
rather than real divisions.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has indicated that
decisions would be made by the hard-line national security committee,
rather than others in Iran's diverse power centers, Takeyh said.
Several experts and former diplomats predicted that Iran might agree at
the international meeting to hold more sessions, or even offer to sign
on to a proposed "freeze-for-freeze" deal under which Tehran would
agree to not expand its nuclear program and the U.S. and other
countries would refrain from imposing further economic sanctions.
Such a deal would allow Iran to continue refining its nuclear program
but not expand it, Takeyh said.
John R. Bolton, the hard-line former U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations, said the administration, in jettisoning its old policy of
refusing to meet with Iran, had "succumbed to sustained pressure" from
the State Department and European allies.
Bolton predicted more meetings would take place as the Iranians "buy
time to get to the postelection period and make a smooth transition to
the Obama administration."
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times