In an August 18, 2010 speech before senior regime officials on the occasion of Ramadan, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei revealed that, before Ahmadinejad's presidency, Iran had held talks with the U.S. on the issue of Iraq and on another issue that the U.S. had called "an important security matter," but that these talks had led nowhere. He added that his country is nevertheless willing to renew the talks, on the condition that they not be limited to one issue (presumably the nuclear program), and that the sanctions on Iran be lifted and the threats against it be stopped.[1]Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on the same occasion that "Iran welcomes talks [with the U.S.], as long as they are just, but will not waive its rights to any extent whatsoever."[2]
Earlier, in an August 12, 2010 editorial, the moderate conservative daily Ebtekar, which frequently criticizes the policies of President Ahmadinejad, expressed a bold and unusual position, calling on the Iranian regime to hold direct talks with the U.S., without any preconditions. The daily argued that direct talks are a strategic interest of both countries, that each of them a leader of an international bloc, and that now is the opportunity to launch the talks. It also clarified that whatever happens, Iran would continue to enrich uranium on its soil.
Following are the main points of the editorial:[3]
The editorial argues that direct talks with Iran would serve the U.S.'s security and international interests, as they would have a positive impact on finding solutions to the crises in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to the Arab-Israeli conflict. At the same time, they would serve Iran's economic and nuclear interests, because Iran would be able to direct its resources towards developing its economy. The daily stresses that the talks would not prevent Iran from continuing to enrich uranium on its soil.
The article contends that, despite the sanctions imposed on Iran by U.S. President Barack Obama, the potential for direct dialogue still exists, as reflected by the decrease of hostile statements on both sides. Moreover, Ahmadinejad has stressed, "in his own style," that Iran would be willing to talk, and Obama is also amenable to the idea. In fact, the two sides have a strategic need for each other, because neither of them can prevail over the other in resolving the important regional issues of Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq.
The article goes on to say that the two countries are of similar status. Both are leaders of international blocs: Iran leads the resistance camp, including Hizbullah, Hamas, Shi'ite groups in Iraq, and Syria, while the U.S. leads the "traditional Arab bloc" (i.e., Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan), as well as Israel. Moreover, Iran's nuclear capabilities have "created a kind of political equalibrium between the two sides," and despite the lack of trust between them, both sides recognize the lack of dialogue could lead to war.
The daily stresses that direct strategic talks do not necessarily mean friendly relations, as demonstrated by the talks between the U.S. and China in 1972, during Richard Nixon's presidency. However, such talks could lead to rapprochement and to a situation where each side recognizes the role of the other and respects the other's crucial interests. Both sides admit that the dangerous situation in the region threatens and harms them both.
Finally, the daily suggests that the talks between Iran and the 5+1, slated for September 2010, could be a springboard to the direct talks, which would focus on the nuclear issue, but could also encompass a range of other issues.
Endnotes:
[2] Fars (Iran), August 20, 2010.
[3] Ebtekar (Iran), August 12, 2010.
