Iranian Diplomacy Hosts Roundtable on Iran-US Relations
Iranian Diplomacy in a roundtable has discussed the various dimensions of the idea of establishing a US interest section office in Tehran as well as the future of relations between Iran and the United States
The idea of establishing a US interest section office in Tehran had become a topic of discussion among decision making centers and analysts from both countries over the past couple of months. It is to be noted that US interests in Iran are presently looked after by the Swiss embassy in Tehran and the issue has not been formally placed on the agenda of both countries: Nor the United States as the country proposing it or Iran.
Iranian Diplomacy in a roundtable has discussed the various dimensions of the issue as well as the future of relations between Iran and the United States after the November 2008 presidential elections in America.
The participants were Sadeq Kharrazi, former Iranian ambassador to Paris; Dr. Hadi Semati, university instructor and analyst in international affairs; Dr. Majid Ravanchi, former Iranian ambassador to Switzerland; and an American and international affairs expert.
American affairs expert: We must remember that no preliminary talks have been held between Tehran and Washington on implementation of the idea of opening a US interest section in Iran. The issue can be reviewed from several aspects:
· First of all the presentation of the idea is not something new. The US administration has voiced desire to maintain a (diplomatic) presence in Iran before. Washington has formally no representative(s) at its interest section office in Iran but there are 40-50 Iranians active at Iran’s interest section in the United States. This is an obvious imbalance which is further aggravated by Iran’s mission to the Unite Nations in New York.
· Secondly, there is a thinking in the United States based on which the possibility of a US military strike on Iran is nil and that the least cost of a US presence in Iran through diplomatic relations would require a political commitment but the opening of an interest section office would not entail political commitment.
· Thirdly, certain circles in the United States intend to portray the US as a country favoring reconciliation and diplomacy. For the same reason, they send various signals from different places. These circles hope that Iran would not give a positive response to the idea of a US interest section in Tehran so that they could depict an extremist and unusual picture of the IRI and pretend that Washington favors diplomacy. This was very clear in the remarks of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the time the idea of an interest section office was raised. She had said at the time that Washington should not be identified as the cause of failure of the negotiations.
Along these three ways of thinking there is a pessimistic view too which says the US is looking for confrontation (with Iran) behind these convergent actions. In any case, it would not be in Iran’s interest to be very excited about this proposal and serious talks must be held to clarify the US intentions behind the idea.
Dr. Ravanchi: In Ms Rice’s reaction about a possible US interest section in Tehran mention has been made of the Cuban example and it has been compared to opening of a US interest section in Havana. This is under conditions that despite opening of the office, the hostile US policies towards Cuba still continue. This once again reminds us that we should not show much enthusiasm in this respect.
Sadeq Kharrazi: We should also not overlook the role played by mediators and brokers in Tehran-Washington relations. Under the former governments, there were brokers who wanted to mediate between Iran and the US but greatly harmed Iran because they had different intentions. The brokers who now want to reestablish relations between Tehran and Washington act more in US interests. If the Iranian government adopts a sound and formulated policy one can be hopeful (about resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries). But mere lobbying and presence of middlemen alone would not be able to change the strategy. Lobbying is a tool for strategy. Lobbying cannot help halt the sanctions against Iran or change hostile policies. Brokers would only add to the distrust between Iran and US. With direct talks between the two governments the present threats would probably go away.
Dr. Hadi Semati: The role America plays in purple revolutions is very important. The United States is looking for a change in policy of all countries, including Iran. For the US, lack of direct contact with the social and intellectual layers of the Iranian people is a gap in its policies. Meantime, the presence of more than 1.5 million Iranians in the US would justify Iran’s intention to open an interest section in Washington staffed by Iranians dispatched from Tehran. But the situation with the US is the opposite. As a result, the opening of a US interest section in Tehran must be subject to specific conditions. In fact relations between Iran and the US are a package which must be agreed upon in whole. The main purpose behind raising such an idea is to render consular services first; and enhance cultural and popular exchanges between the two countries in the second place. Inside the United States, some believe that Washington should offer the proposal transparently. If this happens, “public diplomacy” would be the aim of the Americans. But it seems that the immediate aim of the Americans behind the proposal is to strip Iran of its diplomatic maneuver.
Would Opening of US Interest Section Negate Possibility of US Military Attack on Iran?
Dr. Hadi Semati: It seems that the opening of such an office in Tehran would make the possibility of military option against Iran more difficult but would not cancel it out. Irrespective of an interest section in Tehran, if the United States concludes that its strategic interests would require military action against Iran it would do it.
American affairs experts: The creation of a US interest section in Tehran is just an “if”. Should this idea materialize the presence of a number of American diplomats in the Iranian capital and reflection of Iranian realities would reduce misunderstandings.
Sadeq Kharrazi: How can one expect the opening of an interest section in Tehran lead Iran and the US towards joint understanding? Both countries enjoy ideological structures, both claim world leadership and both look at foreign policy from military perspective. The question is whether the incentive of normalization of relations exists in the structures of the two countries or not! Today the outlook of the two countries to mutual relations is not one of exigency; rather the US wants to solve many of its Middle East problems by using the Iranian tool.
Dr. Majid Ravanchi: The presence of American representatives in Iran would definitely reduce the possibility of military strike. But should Washington decide to attack it would evacuate its diplomats from Iran first.
How Do You See Minimums and Maximums in Tehran-Washington Relations under New US Administration; Particularly that Logical Trend of Improving Relations Would Require Time and Countries with Such Status Would Take Steps from Non-Governmental Relations to Parliamentary and then Economic and Political Relations?
American affairs expert: No matter who would take over the White House, it is unlikely to see an improvement of relations between Tehran and Washington or opening of a US interest section in Tehran. In fact, it is unlikely to see resumption of relations next year as a maximum; but the minimum of these relations could be war.
Dr. Hadi Semati: It is very unlikely to witness resumption of diplomatic relations and reopening of consular and diplomatic offices in the two countries next year. Media indications do not point to this possibility. The US move is tactical and aimed to achieve long-term strategic goals. In the meantime, to provide for the conditions of a relationship we would need time. The Bush administration is not interested in relations with Iran. If Obama comes to power, we might witness a change of attitude in US policy towards Iran next year. But opening of a US interest section office in Tehran is out of the question. Because of his slogans, Obama may consider some change of attitude but he would not create an essential change in the US policies towards Iran. At the same time, we must remember that the (positive) attitude of Obama is not limited to Iran. Generally speaking, Obama’s foreign policy is different from those of Bush and McCaine.
Sadeq Kharrazi: In the United States, it is not the personality who makes the decision but the system.
Dr. Majid Ravanchi: As long as the Iranian nuclear program is an issue no one should expect a change of US tone. If the status quo continues, Obama would not be able to introduce major changes in connection with Iran. If the present conditions change one could expect some change of attitude towards Iran even from McCaine.
Sadeq Kharrazi: The Middle East policy of the US is implemented through connection with political Jewery. In fact part of the US policies vis-à-vis the Middle East pertains to Jerusalem. The Israelis always want the US policy towards Iran be Israeli-oriented. The art of Iranian statesmen would be to make the US policies American-oriented. But the recent policies of Iran have again shifted the US and its policies towards Israeli orientation.
Dr. Hadi Semati: I agree that the Iranian nuclear issue is like a tree overshadowing all the issues related to Tehran-Washington relations. The Iraqi issue and the Iranian nuclear case would be decisive here. If the policy of Obama is to look for initiatives in interaction and diplomacy, this would create difficulties for Iran. In other words, Tehran would have lesser problems with the policies of McCaine because his perspectives about Iran, if they are implemented, are clear!