With the West still at odds over Iran's nuclear file, the US is increasing the pressure on the Islamic Republic, Rasha Saad reports It's exactly what the Iranians have been betting on: world powers continued to be divided on how to deal with Iran's nuclear file. On Tuesday the six world powers that are coordinating the issue (the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) failed to issue a joint statement criticising Iran's nuclear defiance after China and Russia refused to endorse US-backed tough language. The split, at a 35-nation meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reflected indecision on how to react to Tehran's weekend suggestion that it might temporarily suspend uranium enrichment, but only on its own terms. The divisions in this week's IAEA meeting shed doubts over US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's assurances that she was "quite, quite certain" that UN Security Council members, including Russia and China, will support sanctions in light of Tehran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. During the weekend, hopes were high that the Iranian nuclear standoff with the West could witness a positive development. EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana described the weekend talks as "productive" and that some of the discussions held with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani had "cleared some of the misunderstandings that existed" over Iran's response to the US- European package of trade and other incentives. News also came that Tehran offered to consider temporarily halting uranium enrichment, the US, in reaction, hinting that it was open to such a compromise. However, it was soon revealed that Iran has tabled a list of conditions to any suspension, including: a complete and total halt to activity in the UN Security Council relating to Iran; an absolute indication that sanctions will not be sought; and a recognition that Iran withholds the right to develop nuclear technology on its own soil. These conditions, according to EU diplomats, were swiftly deemed "unacceptable" by relevant world powers that are sticking to their package of trade and other incentives as the only price for suspension. Iran insists that nuclear talks with the West should not include preconditions. It also insists that any suspension would come during, not before, talks. The US, however, sticks to its position that Iran should suspend enrichment before any talks with world powers can take place. "Suspension, verified suspension, that's the condition. The question is, are they prepared to suspend, verifiably, so that negotiations can begin: that's the issue," said Rice. According to the 21-page formal reply of Iran to the EU package of incentives, Tehran is also seeking guarantees that it will not be attacked by the US during any negotiations. Iran is also seeking a guarantee that its right to enrichment on its soil is recognised despite any temporary freeze. In exchange for recognising its right to enrich uranium on its soil, regardless of any temporary freeze, Iran would offer IAEA inspectors increased inspection rights of its nuclear facilities and guarantee that it would not leave the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as it had threatened to do were sanctions imposed. According to an Iranian source that requested anonymity, despite all defiant language, Iran will ultimately come to negotiate with the West over its nuclear activities. "Iranians are pressing hard to raise the ceiling of negotiations and take as much concessions from the West as they can, but ultimately their eyes are on negotiations and not confrontations," the source told Al-Ahram Weekly. He explained that the ultra-conservative government of Ahmadinejad, who had severely criticised the former reformist government of Khatami for suspending enrichment, seeks a high price for uranium enrichment suspension in order to justify any compromise to Iranians and at the same time claim victory over the former Khatami government. Iran suspended enrichment as a goodwill gesture nearly two years ago when the EU was keen to hold nuclear talks with Tehran. Talks failed and Iran ended the voluntary suspension early this year when world powers moved the Iranian file from the IAEA to the Security Council despite Iranian pledges. Divisions over Iran's nuclear file, however, may not prevent the US from acting unilaterally. Already on many occasions US officials have hinted that imposing unilateral sanctions will actually be their coming move. The financial sector was chosen to be the target. Indeed, the Bush administration Friday severed a large Iranian state-owned bank, Bank Saderat, from the US financial system. State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said the action against the Iranian bank was part of a broader effort to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions and discourage its support of terrorist groups. "This is certainly an example of the variety of different levers that are available, not only to the United States, but other countries as well, about how to bring about a change in behaviour in the Iranian regime," he said. Additionally, the US is trying to persuade European banks and financial institutions to stop dealing with Iran. Earlier this year, the Swiss bank UBS cut off all dealings with Iran. HSBC and Credit Suisse have reportedly also limited their exposure to Iranian business. For many analysts, however, dialogue, not unilateral action, between the US and Iran is the only way to defuse the current nuclear standoff. According to this view the US is exaggerating the dangers of the Iranian nuclear file to gain concessions from the Islamic Republic in Iraq where Tehran enjoys undeniable weight, usually described by US officials as unwelcome interference and the military support of selected Iraqi groups. The historical visit of former Iranian president Mohamed Khatami to the US last week was seen within this context and revived the debate over the validity of initiating talks between the two countries. According to analysts the objectives for Khatami's trip were two- fold: to provide a counterpoint to President Ahmadinejad's confrontational rhetoric; and to demonstrate that other voices and strands of political thought inside the Iranian establishment remain active. Khatami, who vehemently defended Iran's right to access peaceful nuclear technology, reportedly on many occasions in his extended visit called for dialogue between the US and his country. Khatami criticised the "confrontational languages" of both Iranian and US presidents, arguing that relations between the two would improve only through talks, not threats. He added that these talks would "open the path to a better tomorrow and to rescue life from the claws of warmongers and violence-seekers and ostentatious leaders". Khatami was invited by the UN-sponsored Alliance of Civilisations, of which he is a founding member. The group strives to foster cross-cultural understanding between Western and Islamic states. Khatami reiterated the official Iranian position that Tehran would consider suspending its nuclear programme if Western powers would talk without conditions. Khatami also accused US foreign policy of furthering terrorism in the Muslim world. Almost directly several US politicians and interest groups criticised the State Department for giving Khatami a visa. Senator Rick Santorum, Republican-Pennsylvania, called Khatami "one of the chief propagandists of the Islamic fascist regime". Governor Mitt Romney refused to allow state police to protect Khatami during his Massachusetts visit, holding the former president responsible for "the murder and torture" of student activists. The Khatami visit also provoked rage within Iranian neo- conservative circles where hard-liners have called for him to be stripped of his clerical status. Kayhan, an influential newspaper closely associated with Ahmadinejad's administration, blasted Khatami in its 12 September editorial. First, it listed a series of misdeeds committed by the ex- president during his US visit, including his call for the recognition of the Jewish state, his belief in the existence of the Holocaust, and his opposition to characterising the United States as "the Great Satan." The editorial went on to demand an apology from Khatami, saying he had abused his status as a former president to damage the national interest. "Let's only hope that Khatami wakes up, asks for absolution and apologises to the noble and suffering Iranian people," the editorial said. The dual attack on Khatami is perhaps a reminder that rapprochement between both the US and Iran, arch enemies, is far from being an easy task.
