What Kerry needs to know about Iran

In his first official trip as US secretary of state this week, John Kerry has reiterated that Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. But both he and vice-president Joe Biden have also this month made a point of calling for bilateral talks to resolve the differences between Washington and Tehran. The response of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, that “negotiations will not solve the problem”, has been interpreted as closing the door on that option.

Having served in the Iranian government for almost three decades, holding posts in parliament, the foreign ministry and national security, and working on relations with the west, I can confidently state that negotiation is possible. The view that Iran does not want to negotiate is a misreading of the signals – often conflicting – from Tehran.

Some maintain Tehran is dragging its feet on negotiations as a way to increase significantly its nuclear capability before entering direct talks from a position of power. This is wrong. During talks from 2003 to 2005, while I was spokesman for Iran’s nuclear team, we proposed to France, Germany and UK, the EU3, to cap enrichment of uranium at 5 per cent (useful only for civil purposes) in return for recognition of Iran’s right to enrich. Since 2010, Iran has offered several times to halt 20 per cent enrichment in return for fuel rods to power Iran’s civil reactor. The west declined.

With such high stakes going into any negotiations – a nuclear-capable Iran, and the possibility of a regional arms race and a pre-emptive strike by Israel – each must understand the other’s position if there is to be genuine negotiation. Tehran needs to recognise four facts.

First, US President Barack Obama cannot succeed in his engagement policy without direct talks with Tehran. Second, this administration is willing to talk; the next might not embrace peaceful diplomacy as readily. Third, harsh rhetoric will only strengthen the hands of warmongers in the US and Israel. Finally, missing this window of opportunity for engagement would ensure hostilities continue, with a possibility of all-out confrontation.

Since the onset of his leadership in 1989, Ayatollah Khamenei has told all Iranian administrations that he does not rule out negotiations or normal relations with the US. Public statements in 2008 and 2009 indicated he did not believe relations should be severed for ever, and that he would approve moving on to better terms when it became in Iran’s interest to do so.

But Washington needs a correct reading of his mindset on direct talks. There are two significant points.

First, for the past two centuries, Iran’s sovereignty, independence and integrity have come under threat from world powers and regional conflicts such as the Iraqi attack that led to the 1980-88 war. This made Iranians resistant to occupation or submission under threat. “Does it make sense to speak about negotiations while you continue to exert pressures and make threats?” asked Ayatollah Khamenei on February 7 in response to Mr Biden’s offer of direct talks. In other words, Tehran will begin direct talks if there are not threats hanging above its head.

Second, Mr Obama’s strategy, like that of his predecessors, is to invite Iran for direct negotiations while escalating hostilities through economic warfare, covert operations and cyber attacks. The supreme leader believes America’s core
policy is – and has been since 1979 – regime change. He points to recent instances in which Iran has shown trust and agreed to start talks but the US has proved disloyal and raised pressure on the government. “If the Americans demonstrate, both in words and actions, that they are not irrational, then they would find Iranians benevolent, rational, and ready to engage,” he told a large crowd in Tehran this month.

The conclusion is that he is open to serious negotiation, but one based on genuine, demonstrable goodwill. In his February 7 speech, he proposed talks without deception and on equal terms. In response, Mr Obama and Mr Kerry must do more than offer discussions. They must suspend the language of threat and hostile actions. Only then will diplomacy work.

The writer is a research scholar at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and a former spokesman for Iran’s nuclear negotiators. His latest book is ‘The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Memoir’

Source: FT