In Istanbul on October 1, representatives for the United States along with the other P5 plus one countries, Russia, China, France, and Britain plus Germany, will sit down for talks with Iran. While the Islamic Republic insists that its nuclear programme is off the agenda, Iran's interlocutors have made it clear that they will insist on raising the issue. Meanwhile, in spite of the fact that entering into unconditional talks with Iran represents one of president Barack Obama's campaign promises, his willingness to engage with Iran at what is seen by many as an inopportune moment is leading critics in the US and Israel to goad him into making preparations for war. "When the United States sits down with Iran early next month for face-to-face talks, the Iranian nuclear programme will be at the top of the American agenda, even though Iranian officials insist it is off the table, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday," The New York Times reported. " 'Iran says it has a number of issues it wishes to discuss with us,' Mrs Clinton told reporters. 'But what we are concerned about is discussing with them the questions surrounding their nuclear programme and ambitions.' "She said the meeting, to be held October 1, would fulfill President Obama's pledge to engage with Iran. But she insisted that the United States would not be drawn into a lengthy and fruitless diplomatic dance with Iran, as some analysts have warned. " 'We have no illusions about the Iranian government,' Mrs Clinton said. 'The point is to meet and explain to the Iranians, face to face, the choices that Iran has, and to see whether Iran is prepared to engage.' " Roger Cohen, in a commentary expressing support for Mr Obama's diplomatic move said: "The president is right because only creative diplomacy can head off the onrushing Iranian uranium enrichment (8,000 inefficient centrifuges and counting); because closer relations with the West represent the best long-term hope for reform in Iran; because Iran is negotiating from the relative weakness of post-June-12 revolutionary disunity; and because the strong US interest lies in preventing an Israeli attack on Muslim Persia." Emily B Landau, director at the Arms Control and Regional Security Project at the Institute for National Security Studies in Israel said: "the question remains whether the idea of a meeting on the basis of Iran's proposal can nevertheless be considered a possible constructive first step. On the basis of what we know so far, the prospects are far from encouraging. From the standpoint of the negotiations dynamic, there are a number of problems that relate to the perceived international resolve of the group of states facing Iran. The P5 plus one have not only given up on their precondition of Iran ceasing uranium enrichment activities, but they are now agreeing to enter dialogue with an essential Iranian 'no' as far as even discussing the nuclear issue in the talks themselves. "Against this background, US assurances conveyed by the State Department spokesman that it will not allow the nuclear issue to be absent from the talks, regardless of what Iran has proposed, sound weak and ineffective. This leaves Iran with the upper hand as far as agenda-setting. "An additional problem is that the six powers themselves are certainly not on the same page as far as their positions on Iran's nuclear program - they have different ideas about the character of this programme, its implications, Iran's intentions, and the best way forward. Thus, even if the US succeeds in forcing the nuclear issue onto the agenda, this will be a dialogue in which Iran - as a single and determined actor - has an inherent structural advantage over the other side, which lacks unity. In this sense, a US-Iranian dialogue would make much more sense." On Tuesday, the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington DC, presented a report, "Meeting the Challenge: Time Is Running Out," which said: "If by the end of 2009, the United Nations and European Union do not impose significant, binding sanctions, or if they do but Tehran does not demonstrate substantive progress and cooperation in reversing its policy on nuclear development, then we believe the Obama administration should elevate consideration of the military option. In this regard it is necessary to make clear that the US military is more than capable of launching a devastating attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities than either Iranian officials or many journalists realise." During a press conference organized by the BPC's National Security Initiative, Senator Joseph Lieberman criticised the Obama administration's approach. "As of today, September 15 2009, we are failing in our effort to prevent Iran from going nuclear. That is just a stark fact. They are not slowing down, we're not stopping them, and there is no pretending otherwise," said Mr Lieberman. "Unless the Iranians quickly prove in these talks that they are prepared to have a serious negotiation about their nuclear programme, and not just run out the clock, we need - we, the United States of America - needs to be ready to walk away from the table. And to do so with strength and determination, followed by every possible sanction that we can apply to the Iranians, both unilateral and multilateral," he said. "Israel will be compelled to attack Iran's nuclear sites if Western powers cannot agree crippling sanctions against Tehran by the end of the year, a former Israeli deputy defense minister said on Wednesday. Ephraim Sneh, who holds no position in the current Israeli government and was speaking in his personal capacity, told Reuters it was not clear the United States and European Union had the decisiveness to take such steps, which should include tougher banking and oil curbs, by year's end. " 'We cannot live under the shadow of an Iran with nuclear weapons,' he said in an interview on a visit to Britain. 'By the end of the year, if there is no agreement on crippling sanctions aimed at this regime, we will have no choice.' " 'This is the very, very last resort. But ironically it is our best friends and allies who are pushing us into a corner where we would have no option but to do it.' " 'I wonder if they will do it (a tougher sanctions regime) quickly enough. If not, we are compelled to take action.' "Sneh, a retired brigadier-general, is a former member of parliament's defense and intelligence committees. As deputy defense minister, he held responsibility for Iran." In an analysis for Reuters, Dan Williams pointed out that although Israel's leadership have expressed their adamance that Iran must not become a nuclear-armed state, discreet preparations are in fact being made for that eventuality. "The orchestrated roar of air force exercises designed to signal Israel's readiness to attack Iranian nuclear facilities are belied, perhaps, by a far quieter project deep beneath the western Jerusalem hills. "Dubbed 'Nation's Tunnel' by the media and screened from view by government guards, it is a bunker network that would shelter Israeli leaders in an atomic war - earth-bound repudiation of the Jewish state's vow to deny its foes the bomb at all costs... "Aerial and naval manoeuvres, leaked to the media, have told of plans to reach Iran, though this time the targets are so distant, dispersed, and fortified that even Israel's top brass admit they could deliver a short-term, disruptive blow at most. "Hence Israel's discreet arrangements for living with the possibility of a nuclear-armed arch-enemy - the bunkers, the missile interceptors, the talk of a US strategic shield and of Cold War-style deterrence based on mutually-assured destruction. "One government intelligence analyst suggested that Israel had passed a psychological threshold by 'allowing' Iran to manufacture enough low-enriched uranium (LEU) for a bomb. " 'We keep fretting about whether they will have a "break-out capacity", but really they're already there,' the analyst said."
pwoodward@thenational.ae
