May 28, 2007 12:03

Inside Today's U.S.-Iran Talks

In Baghdad today, the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors—Ryan Crocker and Hassan Kazemi Qomi--are holding a landmark meeting between the two countries to discuss stability in Iraq. It's the first public bilateral diplomacy between Washington and Tehran in 27 years.

I moderated a panel at the World Economic Forum meeting in Jordan last week that gave a fascinating glimpse into the issues, positions and mindsets that the U.S. and Iran bring to the discussions. The highlight of the WEF panel were several direct and indirect exchanges between Republican U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Dr. Mohammed Javad Larijani, a former Iranian MP and influential conservative foreign affairs strategist. Larijani, whose brother Ali is secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and heads Iran’s nuclear negotiations, kindly spoke in English rather than Farsi.

Parsing the U.S.-Iranian exchanges in Jordan, a few things stand out. There was some predictable talking past one another. Yet Hatch and Larijani seemed to emphasize that both countries are sincere about holding talks, the U.S. because it needs help in Iraq, and Iran because it wants to reduce tensions between the U.S. and Iran. It was Larijani who argued that the talks on Iraq could lead to discussions on other issues, presumably like Iran’s nuclear program. Given the 30-year bipartisan freeze on U.S. relations with Iran, it was interesting to see a statesman of Hatch’s stature declaring there was “no excuse” for not holding discussions with Tehran.

You could discern an Iranian strategic edge in the comments. Larijani flatly described the U.S. as being “bogged down” in Iraq and almost gloated that the U.S. had learned the limits of unilateralism the hard way. Hatch quite humbly and honestly acknowledged American mistakes in Iraq; I counted him using the word stable, or some form of it, 13 times, surely a sign of Washington’s anxieties. Seven times Hatch expressed his “respect” for Iran or admiration for Iran’s greatness.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that Iran agreed to hold the talks in Baghdad mainly as a way of buying some time in its escalating nuclear standoff. The comment of the day might have been when Larijani said, “We should not expect that this meeting should resolve all the issues in the world or all the disputed matters. It may open up a path, a road, which contains the tension, decreases the tension, and later on may lead to better cooperation. We should be patient, yes.” And, yes, perhaps not expect much very soon.

Here’s the key parts of the WEF exchange:

Question: Is it in Iran’s national interests to cooperate with the U.S. in Iraq? Wouldn’t you rather see the U.S. bogged down in Iraq, to fail and fail badly?

Larijani: You mentioned what the neighbors of Iraq should do. I would count the United States as a neighbor by that definition, because there are plenty of things they should do as well. As far as our national interest is concerned: number one, our national interest is there should be a unified Iraq, a sovereign Iraq, there should be a stable Iraq. An Iraqi government which is stable, which is in control, which is developing, is in the best interests of Iran. We are ready to help any government in Iraq for achieving that. We need a government that can live with others in peace and tranquility. We have plenty of cultural interests, economic interests. So this is basically our interest.

As far as American policy toward Iraq is concerned, there should be a good analysis of that. Perhaps President Bush was expecting that when bombing Iraq, then there would be a red carpet for him. Iraq should submit to the occupation. This was wrong. Iraq is an advanced society, culturally very complex, and nobody likes occupation. This is true. So, there were plenty of mistakes committed by the United States in this occupation.

What we do not want to see is that Iraq should be a place that even the troubles of the United States should be cured there. American policy is wrong in a lot of aspects. Why the Iraqi people should pay for that? Americans are bogged down in Iraq and to some extent in Afghanistan due to a lack of knowledge and bad policy in the area.

Our national interest vis a vis the Americans is very simple. We should contain the tension between us. It is in the benefit of us and the United States. We should decrease the tension. American policy toward Iran is suffering from three decades of paranoia after the revolution. So changing the regime in Iran, bombing Iran, hitting Iran: the language of threat is very common in the literature of American policymakers, politicians and also to some degree among Israelis as well. This is very bad. This is indicative of a wrong mindset. It is not in the interests of America as well.

We think that curbing the tension between us has mutual benefit. This is the rationale for sitting down with the Americans in Iraq to discuss the issue. Iraq will be the first issue, perhaps. And if it succeeds, it can open up to other discussions which affect the whole region. The whole region is suffering from this hostility between Iran and America. And sometimes it has been blown up and fueled by the American positions and statements, perhaps, in our view, to justify their military presence over there. I think that this region does not have more stomach for violence. This is our general perception.

Let me add one thing. We should not expect that this meeting should resolve all the issues in the world or all the disputed matters. It may open up a path, a road, which contains the tension, decreases the tension, and later on may lead to better cooperation. We should be patient, yes.

Question: Does American being bogged down make Iran happy or help Iran?

Larijani: There is one element which everyone in the world is happy [about]. That is that one single power tries to impose itself unilaterally, to claim omnipotence and tries to resolve everything in the world by resort to military might. I think this is an end to that policy. Israel also experienced that when they confronted Lebanon. It is an end, or the beginning of an end, of the overt use of military power. Although it is unfortunately costing Americans’ lives. This is a bad thing, we are very much against that, and we really don’t like to see people killed over there. But this is something that most countries of the world, they like it-- an end to the military use and military occupation, yes.

Question: What does America want from Iran in terms of cooperation in Iraq?

Hatch: We would like to see Iran more cooperative. We would like to see Iran not sending in ability to make bombs, IEDs and EFPs. We had evidence as we were there, very solid evidence, that Iran has been participating in this. We would like to see Iran recognize the fact that, Iran being primarily Shi’a, that the United States has spent an awful lot of its treasure and given a lot of lives, for the greatest liberation of Shi’a in the history of the planet.

And we know that Iran’s a great country. We have many Iranians in our country. We have an Iranian in my family, who I have great respect for. And we would like to have a better relationship. And it is in the best interests of Iran to do so. If you look at the Iranian economy, by all measures it’s not much better than it was in 1979. Yet it has some of the greatest thinkers, business people and abilities of almost any nation. There must be something wrong that a country with that kind of brilliance and that kind of capacity can not raise it’s economic fortunes better than it has. I suspect part of it is because [of] the current leadership in Iran. And which, to some, is something less than sufficient.

We had evidence as we went to Iraq this time that Iran is participating in destabilizing Iraq. I suspect that part of that is because 80% of the people in Iraq wanted a representative form of government and risked their lives to go and vote for it. And we respect that.

Now the United States has spent around $100 billion a year in Iraq. We were upwards of $700 billion to try and stabilize a country that deserves the stabilization and freedoms that can come from having a representative form of government. We would like Iran to work with us in that regard. But not just Iran, all the countries of the Middle East, because it is in I think the Middle East’s best interests to work together to try and bring stability to the Middle East and not war.

I listened to Mr. Larijani and his criticisms of the United States. I think there is no question that we’ve made some mistakes in this war. But the intentions have been honorable. And the fact of the matter is, [Iraq] had violated more than 12 of the U.N. resolutions. We didn’t just go in there because we thought they had weapons of mass destruction, which every liberal country in the world believed at the time, not just the United States of America, but because they were in violation over and over again of U.N. resolutions. I think the whole Middle East would benefit a great deal if stability could come to Iraq and if we would have more cooperation from their neighbors like Iran and Syria and if Lebanon would be less interfered with by some of the nations there including Iran. So Iran, it would seem to be in their best economic interests if nothing else to start mending their own affairs and not interfering with other nations in the Middle East.

Question: Why has it taken the United States so long to reach out to Iran in pursuit of our mutual interests in Iraq? Is this a political ploy by Bush to show that we are reaching out? Are you optimistic that this is substantive and serious?

Hatch: There has been some reaching out, but it’s been behind the scenes rather than in front of the scenes. I think we need to do more, but I think that Iran needs to do more. And there needs to be better good faith shown. Thus far, there’s a real reticence in our country and a lack of respect for the good faith of the Iranian people. But I think America is willing to sit down, negotiate, and see what can be done to resolve these problems.

After all, we don’t enjoy having our young men and women killed in any land. So you can imagine how we feel about this. This is a different war than any other war we’ve ever fought, too, because it’s against terrorism. People who don’t represent a country, they don’t wear uniforms. They don’t abide by international law. And they are people who want to disrupt the basic stabilized forces and countries in our world. And we cannot allow them to win. It’s just that simple. And if we do, I think the whole Middle East I going to be in chaos, as well as many other countries in the world.

So, we would like to have more help. We would like to work with our Iranian counterparts. We know how brilliant the Iranian people are. We have respect for Iranian people. And i think we can do a better job in diplomacy and getting together and seeing what we can to do to resolve some of these difficulties.

But we need some indications of respect, some indications of willingness, some indications of good faith, and some indications of obedience to the rule of law, international law if you will, from Iran and other nations including Syria, in order to accomplish what really could be a very stabilizing force and stabilizing situation in the Middle East, one of the greatest areas in the world today. We’d like to see that. I think maybe we can learn from our Iranian counterparts. If they’ll sit down, and we will sit down together, and maybe solve some of these problems.

Question: Is Iran playing a game in Iraq with the U.S. In the talks, is Iran willing to discuss only Iraq, or are the talks linked to American cooperation on issues of interest to you like the nuclear file and Palestine?

Larijani: In our meeting, both Iran and the United States have agreed to discuss only the issue of Iraq. It is in the presence of the government of Iraq. We are not going to decide for the Iraqis. The role of Iran and the United States is quite different. The United States is an occupying force over there. We are a neighbor country. We will see what we can do to help Iraq. This is our prime objective. We want to have a neighboring country stable, unified, its territorial integrity as well, so we are going to contribute on that. Let me tell you on the record that since the start of the new government in Iraq, Iran’s support for this government was unequaled to any support in the region.

My brother the foreign minister of Jordan was criticizing that some people are left [out of] the constitution of Iraq. The constitution of Iraq is a result of their own production. Perhaps in the future they should amend that. But we should not forget that this worry about coverage of all minorities is stemming from a democratic sense which we totally agree. But in the same Iraq Saddam Hussein was ruling for 20 years, a single family for all the country, there was not room neither for Sunnis, for Shi’ites, for Kurds. My brothers in Jordan were supporting them all the way. They never asked why Saddam Hussein is not letting others to come in. This kind of criticism may not be very substantial.

The issue is that we should not flare up the rivalry of the Sunni and Shi’ite. Iran is not interfering in the Iraqi affairs. We are discussing that with the government daily. How we can help you. If they say, finish, we don’t want any help from you, that’s fine. I mean, we are there to help our brothers in Iraq, period. We are not an occupier.

Senator Hatch has mentioned about the armaments sent from Iran to Iraq. They don’t need armaments from Iran. I mean, Iraq is full of arms. Borders are open. It could come from everywhere. But don’t forget, those who are killed, who they are? They are mostly from the Shi’ites. Sunnis are killed as well. But why Iran should incite? Even suppose Iran doesn’t have any regard for any humanitarian rules. Suppose that. Why we should kill the Shi’ites? At least we are Shi’ites. For us, a Shi’ite, a Sunni, a Kurd to be killed is wrong. Even an al Qaeda member to be killed as far as they are not fighting is wrong. We should put that away from our mindset.

Senator Hatch mentioned the issue of respect, a kind of prelude to the success of the meeting in Iraq. Well, I mean, respect is a two-way story. We have been labeled the axis of evil and we are threatened every other day that this government should be changed. Congress is approving some budget to bring regime change in Iran. President Bush is saying we are going to bomb Iran. Even just recently, after some rather good gestures from Condeleezza Rice, Mr. Dick Cheney came on the war ship in the Persian Gulf and started to threaten us. Here we are, the military might. He said, well, the level of this meeting should be at the ambassadorial level, not more. Are they good signs for respect? Definitely not.

From day number one after revolution until now, it is 30 years past, every day we are witnessing a barrage of accusations from Washington coming towards Iran. Respect for international law. Where we evaded international law? Compare us with Israel. We are a signatory to NPT. Their cameras are over there. They are monitoring us personally and mechanically every day. What about Israel? Israel neither endorse NPT. Doesn’t let atomic energy agency to come over there. So, what is respect? The United States showed in its actions it doesn’t have any respect itself for abiding by international law. Either we accept one concept, there is a super-state called Israel, which is immune from any mistake, it is a God-given state, everything they should do is right. And the rest should abide by the law. These double standards are very wrong.

Question: Would Senator Hatch like to respond?

Hatch: We have a great deal of respect for Iran. There is no question you are a unique nation with great abilities. On the other hand, we don’t think you are adding one jot or tittle to helping to stabilize peace in the Middle East. As a matter of fact, it’s easy to cause destabilization. It’s very difficult to try and work for stabilization.

Now our country needs to do a better job, it seems to me, of dealing with our friends in Iran. I’d like to see that, personally. There is no excuse for us not sitting down and discussing these matters. On the other hand, it makes it very difficult when we know that Iran is helping to send weapons into Iraq that are killing not just Americans but Iraqis themselves and teaching people how to do the EFPs and the IEDs. These are things that bother us greatly. Why any top political scientist would even suggest that the president has indicated that he might bomb Iran or that we are going to invade Iran knowing that he has said exactly the opposite and so has Vice President Cheney, is beyond me.

But to make a long story short, we have respect for Iran. I’d like that respect to be justified. I would like us to sit down and see if we can resolve some of these difficulties. If we could resolve some of these difficulties, we then could probably all turn our attention to the Israel-Palestinian set of problems and maybe for a change bring about some resolution there and some reconciliation.

But it’s very difficult to do that when we find our young boys and girls being killed in Iraq with weapons that have been sent from Iran and weapons of destabilization rather than working together to try and resolve some form of stability here in the Middle East, especially with this new nation called Iraq.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo