U.S. and Iran to Talk Under Storm Clouds

When representatives of the U.S. and Iran meet in Baghdad next Monday, it will mark the first substantive encounter between the two sides since before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Officially, the agenda is supposed to be confined to measures that might shore up security in Iraq, avoiding the nuclear standoff between Iran and the West and other contentious issues. But the talks are occurring in an atmosphere of intense mutual suspicion, as elements on both sides ratchet up their political grandstanding and exchanges of invective. As a result, most observers don't expect major breakthroughs or the kind of rapid progress proclaimed as urgent by both sides.

"There are powerful forces pushing the two parties into these talks," acknowleges Dr. William Samii, a longtime Iran specialist currently with the Center for Naval Analyses, a federally funded non-profit. "But there may be even stronger pressures that will make agreement difficult to reach."

One obstacle to any rapprochement between Washington and Tehran is the determination of Iran's most implacable enemies in the U.S. to pursue a more confrontational policy. A powerful group of neo-conservatives — including some of those most active in promoting the invasion of Iraq — plans to gather for an all-expenses-paid conference entitled "Confronting The Iranian Threat: The Way Forward" on May 30 at a luxurious resort in the Bahamas. A number of those invited, which includes six current Bush administration officials, have been strident critics of Iran as well as Iraq hardliners. On a guest list of some 30 are a smattering of think-tank scholars and conservative opinion columnists, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad, and his wife, Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky, as well as Uri Lubrani, the top Iran advisor to Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert. It was unclear who would actually show up, but a spokesman for the organizers, the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the meeting was intended "to bring together a wide range of experts to examine all options for dealing with Iran."

President Bush himself identified some of those options this week in response to reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran is expanding its uranium enrichment capabilities in defiance of U.N. Security Council demands that it freeze enrichment activity. IAEA chief Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei also noted that Iran was three to eight years away from having the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. "My view is that we need to strengthen our sanction regime," Bush said, adding that he and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had discussed plans to beef up punitive U.N. measures.

Two longtime Bush supporters among the neo-conservatives — an ideological pressure group with advocates in and out of government — have revived public calls for military action against Iran. Norman Podhoretz, editor of the journal Commentary, authored an article in the June 2007 issue of his magazine entitled, "The Case for Bombing Iran"; while former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told Fox News this week that, "the only recourse is to dramatically ratchet up the economic and political pressure on Iran and keep open the option of regime change or even military force."

And should President Bush choose to heed those advocating military action, he would find the means close at hand. A U.S. Navy flotilla carrying 17,000 sailors and Marines moved into the Persian Gulf this week in a major show of force. Carrier strike groups led by the U.S.S. John C. Stennis and the U.S.S. Nimitz were joined by the amphibious assault ship U.S.S. Bonhomme Richard and its strike group. Planes from the two carriers and the assault ship are to carry out exercises, while ships run submarine, mine and other maneuvers.

Washington may also be moving to ratchet up covert pressure on Tehran. ABC News reported this week that President Bush has given the CIA a green light to conduct non-lethal covert operations against Iran using propaganda, disinformation and the squeezing of Iran's international banking transactions.

The Iranians, meanwhile, hold several U.S. citizens as undeclared hostages under various pretexts, including allegations of spying. And the U.S. continues to hold a group of Iranians seized by U.S. troops in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Erbil in January — the U.S. accuses them of being members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard engaging in subversion in Iraq; Tehran says they are diplomats detained without justification.

Given rising tensions on so many fronts, what hope is there for a successful diplomatic exchange between the U.S. and Iran next week in Baghdad? Referring to that prospect, one of Iran's top negotiators, Ali Larijani, said, "The talks will be held upon the request of our Iraqi friends and for the sake of assisting the people of Iraq. We will not spare any efforts to restore peace and stability to Iraq and support the country's territorial integrity."

And what about the many other issues that divide the two countries? "In fact, talking with the U.S. over issues related to Iran is not an impossible matter; however, this depends on the subject matter," Larijani said.

Regardless of the tensions that overshadow next week's U.S.-Iran parlay, there's no question that each side stands to benefit from some kind of deal. The new Iraq strategy developed by the top U.S. officials in Iraq, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, stresses political accomodation based on their judgement that neither the Iraqi insurgents nor the powerful Shiite militias can be readily defeated on the battlefield. In light of that strategy, Iran's active cooperation, or at least tacit support appears to be more crucial than ever. As for Iran, its leaders have said they would like to see the U.S. withdraw, perhaps not immediately, but in the relatively near future. The most obvious way to reconcile those U.S. and Iranian goals would be for both parties to work together to stabilize security in Iraq long enough for President Bush or his successor to justify bringing the troops home.