Both President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have repeatedly
been accusing Iran of secretly building an atomic bomb. They demand
that Iran stop all enrichment of uranium and refuse to acknowledge
that, as a signer of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran has
the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, such as the production
of electricity.
When Iran offered to let a watchdog agency inspect its nuclear facilities,
Secretary Rice called it “a stalling tactic to avoid UN penalties.” It appears that the administration is bent on pushing for economic
sanctions, or even military action, against Iran unless this country
of 68 million totally forfeits its right to the development of any
kind of nuclear research and production facilities.
The urgency with which the Bush administration pushes for action against
Iran, however, is hardly justified by the evidence. When the International
Atomic Energy Agency took samples of Iran's enriched uranium, it found
them to be processed to an enrichment level of only about 3.6 percent,
whereas a level of at least 90 percent is needed to make a nuclear
bomb.
John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence, told NBC News: "Our
assessment is that the prospects of an Iranian weapon are still a number
of years off, and probably into the next decade." Defying the
neo-conservative hardliners who want “regime change” in
Iran as soon as possible, Negroponte is apparently not willing to characterize
the evidence against a nuclear weapon in Iran as a “slam dunk,” the
way former CIA director George Tenet hyped the evidence of weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.
In the meantime, opposition to the President’s aggressive stance
against Iran has been gathering steam at home and abroad. Republican
Richard Lugar, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged the Bush administration to hold direct talks with Iran on its
nuclear program and go slow on pressing for sanctions. Former national
security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wants the U.S. “join Britain,
France, and Germany, as well as perhaps Russia and China (both veto-casting
U.N. Security Council members), in direct negotiations with Iran.” Former
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was joined by five former foreign
ministers of European countries in a letter to the President in which
they asked him “to take the bold step of opening a direct dialogue
with the Iranian government on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.”
Perhaps encouraged by those many calls for direct talks between the U.S. and
Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the unexpected move of writing President
Bush a 16-page letter in which he offered his very critical views of Shi’ite
Iran’s relationship to the West, including the claim that the invasion
of Iraq, American treatment of prisoners, and support for Israel could not be
reconciled with Christian values. Regardless of the content, however, the letter
did give the Bush administration an opening for a long overdue dialogue on the
grievances of both sides.
Regrettably for all concerned, Secretary Rice immediately threw cold water on
Ahmadinejad’s overture: “This letter is not the place that one would
find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of this sort. It isn’t
addressing the issues that we’re dealing with in a concrete way.”
One wonders what she expected from a dogmatic Shiite and Iranian nationalist
who has as little diplomatic skill as she herself and who has to tread a dangerous
course between the powerful mullahs and the widespread popular yearning for Western
freedoms. Did she expect Ahmadinejad to concede all U.S. demands and disregard
the domestic uproar he would incur? Ironically, the Bush administration had recently
indicated that it wanted its ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalizad, to talk with
representatives of the Iranian government about alleged meddling and support
for insurgents in Iraq.
In civilized diplomacy, there is no substitute for face-to-face talks, particularly
with people, such as the Iranians, who feel to have been wronged by U.S. policies.
The worst that can happen is that the talks fail. Never to attempt them at all,
is a disservice to all those who would be victimized if the conflict led to a
military confrontation.