What Type of Negotiations Does United States Prefer?
Interview with Ebrahim Mottaqi.
While American officials have shown reluctance towards Israelis in setting a timetable for negotiations with Iran, Obama has told the Israeli Prime Minister that Americans are not going to have talks forever. Obama also said that he expected to know by the end of the year whether Iran was making "a good-faith effort to resolve the differences". Mina Ali-Eslam has interviewed Ebrahim Mottaqi, political analyst, on Iran-U.S. bilateral talks.
How do you interpret Obama’s statement?
Since the National Intelligence report on Iran’s nuclear activities in 2006, which claimed that Iran has halted its military nuclear projects, United States has stepped down from its apocalyptic rhetoric.
Since the release of the report, America has tried to enter a sort of engagement with Iran. Their key objective is to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear activities in return for economic and technological incentives, but Iran has never tilted towards such a view in its nuclear negotiations.
With Obama, the new line is that no security and strategic goals will be achieved without negotiations taking place, so United States must prepared the circumstances for talks within the 5+1 meetings. And I have to say that multilateral talks bear a signification different than bilateral negotiations.
United States will plan for a septilateral parley, like the one held in Geneva last year, which was attended by William Burns, Undersecretary of State. Obama is following an interactional approach and he knows that without applying diplomacy, he won’t achieve strategic goals. That’s where United States and Israel depart.
Many believe that for negotiations to start, Tehran and Washington need a prologue. What domestic, regional or international issue is the most helpful in your opinion?
Well, Americans are facing several crises in our region. Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are all United States’ security challenges. Pakistan may be the country with which United States launches a joint military operation, but it’s Iran that stands as the heart of region. Iran establishes the geopolitical equilibrium. Its geopolitical features provide it with vantage which compels the Americans to show more flexibility.
Some analysts believe that Iran-U.S. talks, and the septilateral talks are two different issues. Meanwhile, in his latest remarks, Obama has said that he wants progress with Iran by year’s end. Are nuclear negotiations and bilateral talks from the same type for the U.S. president?
Nuclear talks are multilateral. These talks were attended by six world powers, that is, the five veto-wielding members of UN Security Council plus Germany. However, since the last year in Geneva conference, Iran has been involved in the parleys. In fact, West has adopted the model used for nuclear negotiations with North Korea and this is a step forward for Iran in the international domain.
However, the signification of bilateral talks is different. While the multilateral talks has one specific topic, follows a certain procedure and has clear objectives, the bilateral talks are intended to gear Iran-U.S. relations to a new context, a post-Cold War –a Cold Peace- context.
But as to which comes first, the multilateral talks are held openly, but bilateral negotiations will be pursued through backstage diplomacy. Actually, these negotiations may be even taking place but not publicized yet. Evidence shows that U.S. leaders prioritize bilateral talks to multilateral negotiations.
Should all the green lights showed by Iran and U.S. be taken serious?
Iran and United States moved towards negotiations three years ago, since the six world powers’ London Conference. When the national interests of two countries are intertwined, naturally they have to solve their problems. Iranian leaders are pragmatist, and Americans are moving towards moderate policies, since pressures have brought them nothing so far.
How do you interpret Obama’s statement?
Since the National Intelligence report on Iran’s nuclear activities in 2006, which claimed that Iran has halted its military nuclear projects, United States has stepped down from its apocalyptic rhetoric.
Since the release of the report, America has tried to enter a sort of engagement with Iran. Their key objective is to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear activities in return for economic and technological incentives, but Iran has never tilted towards such a view in its nuclear negotiations.
With Obama, the new line is that no security and strategic goals will be achieved without negotiations taking place, so United States must prepared the circumstances for talks within the 5+1 meetings. And I have to say that multilateral talks bear a signification different than bilateral negotiations.
United States will plan for a septilateral parley, like the one held in Geneva last year, which was attended by William Burns, Undersecretary of State. Obama is following an interactional approach and he knows that without applying diplomacy, he won’t achieve strategic goals. That’s where United States and Israel depart.
Many believe that for negotiations to start, Tehran and Washington need a prologue. What domestic, regional or international issue is the most helpful in your opinion?
Well, Americans are facing several crises in our region. Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are all United States’ security challenges. Pakistan may be the country with which United States launches a joint military operation, but it’s Iran that stands as the heart of region. Iran establishes the geopolitical equilibrium. Its geopolitical features provide it with vantage which compels the Americans to show more flexibility.
Some analysts believe that Iran-U.S. talks, and the septilateral talks are two different issues. Meanwhile, in his latest remarks, Obama has said that he wants progress with Iran by year’s end. Are nuclear negotiations and bilateral talks from the same type for the U.S. president?
Nuclear talks are multilateral. These talks were attended by six world powers, that is, the five veto-wielding members of UN Security Council plus Germany. However, since the last year in Geneva conference, Iran has been involved in the parleys. In fact, West has adopted the model used for nuclear negotiations with North Korea and this is a step forward for Iran in the international domain.
However, the signification of bilateral talks is different. While the multilateral talks has one specific topic, follows a certain procedure and has clear objectives, the bilateral talks are intended to gear Iran-U.S. relations to a new context, a post-Cold War –a Cold Peace- context.
But as to which comes first, the multilateral talks are held openly, but bilateral negotiations will be pursued through backstage diplomacy. Actually, these negotiations may be even taking place but not publicized yet. Evidence shows that U.S. leaders prioritize bilateral talks to multilateral negotiations.
Should all the green lights showed by Iran and U.S. be taken serious?
Iran and United States moved towards negotiations three years ago, since the six world powers’ London Conference. When the national interests of two countries are intertwined, naturally they have to solve their problems. Iranian leaders are pragmatist, and Americans are moving towards moderate policies, since pressures have brought them nothing so far.