Roguely Stated

Despite hedging on both sides as to the scope of today’s landmark ambassador-level US-Iran talks, the two sides emerged and proclaimed the talks were “positive” and “fruitful.” Both the US and Iran very clearly stated that the exclusive focus of the talks was Iraqi security, but it seems safe to say that observers across the globe are hoping there will be additional, broader-spectrum talks between the two nations very soon - most importantly on the topic of Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Less than a week after an inauspicious show of force by the US Navy in the strategically-critical Straits of Hormuz, and 27 years after the last formal engagement between Iranian and United States diplomats, representatives of both nations sat to discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Notwithstanding the significance to both nations of Iraqi security struggles, the elephant in the living room had to be Iran’s drive to harness nuclear technology for ostensibly peaceful purposes.

Statements from Washington and Tehran indicate a tight box had been placed around the talks. US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, who represented the US, stated after the four-hour meeting that the Iranians had proposed an ongoing Tri-lateral US-Iran-Iraq security mechanism - a proposal Crocker said “would, of course, be a decision for Washington.” Tehran also sought to sculpt the relatively upbeat post-meeting remarks made in Baghdad by their lead representative, Hassan Kazemi Qomi.

The rhetoric continues on both sides. Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency reported that Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki had called on Washington to “admit its failed policies in the [Middle East] and Iraq,” a step Washington is highly unlikely to take. The state-run Tehran Times also published an editorial proclaiming that Iran had gained the “upper hand” over the US. Meanwhile, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker tried to squash exuberance over future talks by, saying that the purpose of today’s meeting “was not to discuss further meetings.”

Despite the hedging on both sides, there seems to be some amount of hope for continued US-Iran engagement. Fundamental disagreements and bad blood notwithstanding, it is critical that the countries engage one another on Iraq and on nuclear energy/weapons. There is simply too much at stake to not engage with Iran, and a failure to keep on the path of diplomacy will limit the legitimacy of military action against Iran, should they make a move to which the US feels compelled to respond with force. Perhaps more importantly, US attempts at diplomacy may go a long way in courting Iran’s moderate populace, who are asserting themselves more and more in each election cycle, undercutting the radical Ahmadinejad’s ability to effectively govern and hinting at a more stable future Iranian regime.

Nick Burns’ words at the JFK Library in April were salient:

In addition to our preoccupation with the real, immediate problems Iran is posing to the region, we also need to think over the horizon and prepare ourselves for the day when our two countries come back to a normal conversation.

Let’s hope that today’s talks are just the beginning of US-Iran engagement and have placed us on the path toward de-escalation and “normal conversation.”

More:
[Boston Review] Carrots and Sticks: Nick Burns on Iran
[CS Monitor] Iran, US talk on Iraq: now what?
[LA Times] U.S., Iran meeting ‘businesslike,’ positive
[Al-Jazeera] Iran and US conclude Iraq talks
[BBC] US warns Iran over arming Iraqis
[TimesOnline] Great Satan sits down with the Axis of Evil
[CNN] U.S. tells Iran face to face: Stop supporting militias