Five grandees of US foreign policy, all former secretaries of state, have urged the next US president to talk to Iran because Washington's military options against the Islamic republic are "very poor". The five - Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Warren Christopher, James Baker and Henry Kissinger - said they favoured engagement with Iran to curb Tehran's nuclear programme, which Washington suspects is aimed at weapons development.
"Frankly, the military options are very poor. And we have to tell the Israelis that," said Mr Christopher, who worked for Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997. The combined voices of the five former secretaries, who spoke at a panel at George Washington University, carry weight not only because of their experience and stature but because they represented Republican and Democratic administrations. "And all are directly involved in one way or another with the current [US presidential election] campaign," said Professor Gary Sick, an Iran analyst at Columbia University in New York.
"They are all highly respected figures who don't often necessarily agree with each other. But they are simply reflecting what is the logical next step [talking to Iran] - which should have been taken a long time ago," Mr Sick said in an interview. There is a growing acceptance, particularly in US foreign policy circles, that Washington will have to talk to Iran, he said. The former secretaries' concerns about the inadvisability of any military action came amid signs that the alternative for the United States of taming Iran's nuclear activities by escalating international sanctions also appears increasingly problematic.
Despite three sets of UN Security Council sanctions, Iran has expanded its uranium enrichment programme since May, the UN's nuclear watchdog reported on Monday, prompting the United States and France swiftly to warn of possible further sanctions. But China insisted yesterday that would not resolve the nuclear stalemate. "The ultimate solution of the Iranian nuclear issue is through negotiations and dialogue," said China's foreign ministry spokesman, Jiang Yu.
Support for a fourth set of UN sanctions against Iran from Russia, another veto-wielding Security Council permanent member, seems even less likely given the recent fallout between Washington and Moscow over Georgia. Many Iran watchers believe that only Washington can give the Iranian regime the security guarantees it needs to persuade it to abandon any ambitions it may have to develop nuclear weapons. Conversely, they argue, the United States needs Iran's support if it hopes to stabilise Iraq and the wider Middle East.
Despite three decades of enmity, Iran and the United States share interests, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. George W Bush, however, has ruled out direct talks until Tehran suspends uranium enrichment. Yet in a notable policy shift, the US president sent William Burns, a senior diplomat, to Geneva in July to attend a direct meeting with Iranian nuclear negotiators. Iran, in turn, has indicated it would look favourably on a recent idea floated by Washington to open a US interests section in Tehran staffed by US officials.
Dealing with Iran has become a contentious issue in the election campaign. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, has stated his readiness to hold direct negotiations with Tehran if he wins the White House. John McCain, the Republican contender, insists his presidential rival's stance on Iran displays inexperience and naivety. With US forces stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, many analysts and US military commanders have warned that Washington is in no position to attack Iran. Tehran repeatedly has also made clear it would retaliate in ways that would send oil prices soaring.
Foremost has been its threat to retaliate against an attack by the United States or Israel by closing the narrow Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 per cent of the world's oil passes to export markets. The recognition of mutual interests between Iran and the United States has led to false dawns in the past. Timing was never fortuitous: when one side felt strong enough to make an overture, the other did not. Now each might feel it can engage from a position of strength. Washington has been bolstered by the improved security situation in Iraq while Tehran has felt stronger since its superpower enemy toppled the Taliban and Saddam Hussein on Iran's eastern and western flanks.
One false dawn came in 1998, a year after the moderate former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami was swept to power in a landslide election victory. He called for contacts between ordinary Iranians and Americans to break down the "bulky wall of mistrust" between their countries. Madeleine Albright, then secretary of state under Mr Clinton, welcomed the gesture but said direct inter-governmental talks would be even better. Hamstrung by his powerful hardline opponents, Mr Khatami was unable to comply.
Ms Albright insisted again at George Washington: "I believe we need to engage with Iran. I think the whole point is you try to engage and deal with countries you have problems with." James Baker, who worked for George HW Bush, the current president's father, suggested that there could be more to direct negotiations than mending fences. He said face-to-face talks might be one way to get the message across that the United States could always aim its nuclear "strategic deterrent" at Iran if Tehran developed nuclear weapons and aimed them at the United States or Israel.
mtheodoulou@thenational.ae
