Is There A Unified Western Policy Toward Iran? Differences In Politics

June 20, 2008

Last week, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and his European colleagues gathered for a news conference in Tehran to demonstrate the unity of the international community in the face of Iran’s nuclear program.

Mr Solana’s mission was to present a new package of incentives to Iran to encourage it to halt uranium enrichment – the process the West fears could be used to make an atomic bomb despite Tehran’s insistence that its nuclear program is strictly peaceful. 

But while Mr Solana was in the process of explaining his offer to Iranian officials, the U.S. President George W Bush announced that Iran had already rejected the package "out of hand".

In fact, as Mr Solana explained later on, Iran has agreed to consider his proposal. 

• Difference

According to an article on the BBC, it was more than just a misunderstanding on Mr Bush's part.

The difference between President Bush and Mr Solana’s positions was so striking.

President Bush was quick to condemn the Iranian government at the earliest opportunity, while Mr Solana wanted to diplomatically persuade the Iranians of his proposal.

The package presented by Mr Solana includes a series of proposals designed to help Iran develop a civilian nuclear programme. It also includes economic incentives if Tehran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment, a condition that the Iranians have repeatedly rejected.

This isn’t the only flaw in the European initiative.

The countries represented alongside Mr Solana were Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. No one from the U.S., which refuses to hold direct talks with Iran.

Moreover, it’s hard to believe, as the offer proposes, that Washington would co-operate in helping to build a nuclear reactor in Tehran.

Would the U.S. Congress vote money for the project, while American generals allege that Iranian weapons are being used against U.S. forces in Iraq, and Israel claims that Iranian rockets are being delivered to Hamas and Hezbollah?

At the same time, any deal attractive to Iran should include the lifting of U.S. economic sanctions that are more important that the light UN embargo.

A commitment from Washington that regime change in Iran is not an option would also be crucial.

• Timing

According to the BBC, Mr Solana believes that if the nuclear dispute is resolved, everything else would follow.

But uranium enrichment was suspended under the previous Iranian president. It didn’t resolve the nuclear crisis or anything else.

Mr Solana’s team knows this fact.

They also know that this isn’t the best time for a diplomatic initiative, but they want to keep all the channels open. Even if Mr Ahmadinejad is stubborn, his critics might be more amenable.

After all, it is not just the U.S. that’s gearing up for a presidential election.

Mr Ahmadinejad also faces a tough battle for re-election in a year's time as well. So there could soon be different presidents in both Washington and Tehran.

The timing of the initiative isn’t good also because Bush is trying to garner support against Iran in his last days in office.

Following two days of talks with President Bush, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Monday that Tehran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment would only lead to further isolation.

Britain would "do everything possible to maintain the dialogue" with Tehran, Brown said at a joint news conference with Bush. "But we are also clear that if Iran continues to ignore United Nations resolutions and continues to ignore our offers of partnership, we have no choice but to intensify sanctions."

For his part, President Bush refused to rule out any action against Iran, saying "all options" were on the table — a formula he uses that is being interpreted as not precluding military strikes.