US-Iran Relations: Heading Towards a Direct Dialogue?

In what could be a pointer to a shifting US approach towards the Islamic Republic of Iran, President Barack Obama appears keen on reviewing the existing American policy on Iran, an overture that is a continuation of Obama’s White House run where he stressed that a constructive dialogue with Tehran on contentious issues would be an option that his administration would be willing to engage in.

Drifting away from the non-appeasing and confrontational policy of the Bush Administration, Obama appears willing to undertake a review of relations within days of assuming office. This shift in stance was visible when he stated that he, “… would be looking for openings in the coming months that could lead to face-to-face talks with Tehran. It is time for Iran to send some signals that it wants to act differently as well and recognise that even as it has some rights as a member of the international community, with those rights come responsibilities.”

Responding to President Obama’s statements, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sounded rather appeasing in his speech on February 10, 2009 where he indicated that Tehran was prepared to talk with the US, though he gave no clear stance on the issue of the controversy ridden nuclear programme. Ahmadinejad made the comments while addressing crowds at a rally commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution at Tehran’s Freedom Square.

Recently, the Obama administration designated an Iraq-based Kurdish militant group PEJAK as a terrorist organization — a move welcomed by the Iranian regime. PEJAK had been locked in a battle with the Iranian military forces for nearly five years. This step is being considered a shift in Washington’s stance since the Iranian as well as Iraqi officials had stated in the past that they suspected the group of receiving covert US aid under the Bush administration. Moreover, President Obama has also urged Iran to stop its financial support for the militant groups Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip that would “send some signals that it wants to act differently.”

Although President Ahmadinejad has adopted a conciliatory approach in response to Obama’s overtures, he has refrained from acceding key demands made by Washington. Undeniably, the most crucial of these is the controversy surrounding Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions and its efforts to develop all elements of the nuclear fuel cycle (though progress in different areas cannot be empirically determined). For this, Tehran is under considerable international pressure to fully comply with IAEA norms, including resumption of its adherence to the Additional Protocol.

Iran, repeatedly, has maintained that nuclear power is necessary for its economic growth given that its population has more than doubled in twenty years and the rapidly industrialising nation has had to regularly import gasoline and electricity. On the other hand, Washington argues that the discovery of the nuclear plants at Natanz and Arak raises qualms on Tehran’s effotrs toward mastering the complete fuel cycle to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium in violation of its NPT obligations.

Given these realities, it is understandable that the Iranian nuclear issue is going to be hotly contested between European capitals and Washington. Even though the US appears keen on direct diplomatic engagement, the extent to which the Obama administration is ready to accommodate Iran remains to be seen. Significantly, Tehran would seek massive economic and security guarantees to further open its nuclear programme to rigorous, on-demand international inspections to guarantee that there is no diversion of nuclear material from peaceful to military purposes.

The ongoing nuclear crisis in Iran is liable to have a bearing on its domestic politics where the political struggle between the conservatives and the moderates is out in the open. A sizeable section of the Iranians view Iran’s nuclear facilities as a symbol of national pride and technological progress. Therefore, there is an emerging sense that the Iranian regime has no misgivings when it comes to the advancement of the nuclear programme. This statement derives more legitimacy with the fact that during the legislative elections for the Majlis held in March 2008, the conservatives won majority of the seats where innovation and progress on the nuclear programme was a key issue.

Iran surely will loom large on Obama’s agenda and his statements on placating the West Asian nation within days of assuming presidency stand testament to this. President Obama’s rapprochement with Tehran appears to be aimed at steering Tehran towards abandoning its nuclear pursuit through Washington’s direct involvement through dialogue with the Iranian establishment — like it did in the case of the nuclear quandary surrounding North Korea.

The upcoming Iranian Presidential elections in mid-2009 in which incumbent President Ahmadinejad is expected to seek re-election will be a contest where the hardliners will work towards a victory that could be interpreted as a triumph of Iran’s’ defiance of the West, particularly on the nuclear issue. The challenge of Iran poses a key security dilemma for the US and in this backdrop, the recent winds of change in political rhetoric provide an interesting twist to the situation and pose a significant inquiry — will this initiation towards dialogue between Washington and Tehran actually yield any tangible results on ground?
 

(Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views either of the Editorial Committee or the Centre for Land Warfare Studies)