| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| 2007-07-02 |
| I found the general at the end of a winding road in the Alborz Mountains 150 miles north of Tehran. He was sitting placidly at a table laden with cherries, nectarines and other fruits. A stream flowed nearby. It was a pleasant and pastoral place to discuss an uncomfortable matter: the tension between Iran and the United States, and the looming possibility of war. The general, Mohsen Rezai, is secretary of Iran's powerful Expediency Council. He's also the former commander of the Revolutionary Guards. He rarely speaks to foreign reporters -- especially Americans. I was surprised when, during a recent visit to Iran, I learned from one of Rezai's aides that he would be willing to meet me at his vacation villa in the mountains. Given Iran's complex, nearly impenetrable politics, it is difficult to say whether Rezai wanted to deliver a semi-official message, or was freelancing. But it seemed like the former, especially because the government also arranged rare interviews with other senior officials, including Ali Larijani, the main negotiator on Iran's nuclear program. Rezai's intention was clear: No matter what question I asked, he somehow managed to bring the discussion back to Tehran's need to find its way out of its dangerous stalemate with Washington. President Bush "has started a cold war with Iran, and if it's not controlled, it could turn into a warm war," he said. Rezai suggested that Iran is searching hard for a face-saving way to end the standoff over its ever-advancing uranium-enrichment program. He endorsed, in a more forthright way than I have heard from any other senior Iranian official, a "timeout" proposed by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. "What it means is for Iran to stay at the [enrichment] level it has reached, with no further progress. By the same token, the U.N. Security Council will not issue another resolution," said Rezai, who indicated that the idea is gaining support inside the Iranian regime. "The Iranian nuclear issue has to be resolved through a new kind of solution like this." Rezai also suggested that the talks recently begun in Baghdad between Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, and his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Qomi, had taken the edge off the sense of threat felt in Tehran. The talks amounted to a long-overdue acknowledgment by Bush that he must deal with the regime, Rezai contended, sounding pleased. Rezai's effort at outreach suggests that the policy of diplomatic coercion being pursued by the United States, Britain, France and Germany is working, at least to some degree. Iran has grown weary of its economic and political isolation, and senior officials in Tehran remain preoccupied with the possibility of a U.S. military strike. Now Iran is eager to satisfy ElBaradei's demands for further clarity on the illicit history of its program -- so much so that Larijani met twice with him last week. What is not clear is whether the Bush administration will accept a "timeout," as opposed to a full suspension of Iran's enrichment activities. It also is not clear, despite Rezai's hopes, that Bush has given up on regime change; hence the "presidential finding" Bush recently signed that authorizes the CIA to conduct non-lethal operations to harass the Iranian regime. Having isolated Tehran diplomatically, the Bush administration seems content to simply wait until it "caves." But my 10-day visit to Iran in late June, mostly spent in Tehran, convinced me that any hopes that Iran will just give up are badly misguided. Yes, the regime is under pressure, but it isn't close to having its back to the wall economically, despite its recent move to ration gasoline, which provoked violent protests. Stores are well stocked, the streets are thronged with shoppers, and flower stores and luxury goods abound, indicating that people in this oil-rich economy still have plenty of disposable income. The U.N. sanctions and the quiet pressure on international banks to cut off business with Iran inflict some pain, but they are generally nuisances and not deal-breakers. And the sanctions are shot full of holes: European businesses do vibrant trade with Iranian counterparts, and Iranians have just shifted their business dealings from dollars to Euros. Even so, the comments by Rezai and Larijani indicate that, with 18 months left in Bush's presidency, Iran may be offering his administration a last chance at a new relationship. At least twice before, the administration has slapped down such overtures. In late 2001, Iran provided invaluable assistance in stabilizing the post-Taliban government led by Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, pledging $550 million worth of assistance (about the same amount promised by the United States) at a January 2002 donors' conference. A week later, Bush declared Iran part of the "axis of evil" during his second State of the Union address -- a stinging rebuff that Iranians still talk about bitterly. Then, in the spring of 2003, Iranian officials used their regular Swiss intermediary to fax a two-page proposal for comprehensive talks to the State Department, including discussions of a "two-state approach" to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. That, too, was ignored. The Bush team is in danger of letting the current opening from Iran pass it by as well. The administration doesn't seem to recognize that diplomatic coercion by itself can't work -- not with a country that has turned its nuclear program into a national crusade. And one hears little acknowledgment from senior U.S. officials that the United States and Iran share some critical interests. It is this impression of inevitably clashing interests that Rezai was trying hard to dispel. He pointed out that his is the only country that can help Washington control Shiite militias in Iraq, slow the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and tame Hezbollah's still-dangerous presence in Lebanon all at once. "If America pursues a different approach than confronting Iran, our dealings will change fundamentally," he said. My conversations with hard-liners and reformers inside Tehran also suggested something deeper: that under the right circumstances, Iran may still be willing to stop short of building a bomb. "Iran would like to have the technology, and that is enough for deterrence," says S.M.H. Adeli, Iran's moderate, urbane former ambassador to London. Still, the Iranians themselves recognize that a more dramatic shift in policy is unlikely to happen on Bush's watch. "Mr. Bush's government is stuck at a crossroads" between confrontation and engagement, "and it can't make a decision," Rezai said. "We have a saying in Farsi: When a child walks in darkness, he starts singing or making loud noises because he's afraid of the dark. The Americans are afraid to negotiate with Iran, and that's why they're making a lot of loud noises." Whether or not that's true, new noises are clearly coming from Tehran. Washington should listen. Michael Hirsh is a senior editor at Newsweek. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #13 Iran and North Korea both hate us deeply. Yet both continuously demand that we deal with them. Its like being stalked by OJ Simpson. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2007-07-02 22:42 |
| #12 The private sector is dominated by monopoly firms, owned by the Ayatollahs. Recent reports indicate the Revolutionary Guard has surpassed the clerics in economic power, but that doesn't detract from your argument. Note that Hirsh reports on the urban areas. Nothing about the rural portions (the main source of the IRGC and clerics' support). And 'trade' is fine, if the Iranians also benefit from it. The high unemployment levels indicate otherwise. Conditions are ripe for both a commercial and democratic revolution. All that is needed is a US trigger. Axis of evil rhetoric won't do it. Neither will negotiations. Negotiations accord a level of respect. That's the last thing that needs to given to Iran's power cliques. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-07-02 22:27 |
| #11 "We have a saying in Farsi: When a child walks in darkness, he starts singing or making loud noises because he's afraid of the dark. The Americans are afraid to negotiate with Iran, and that's why they're making a lot of loud noises." I remember your little proverb, Mike, the next time that syphlitic little pygmy starts running his mouth again. But Mike musta forgot all that shit... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-07-02 16:01 |
| #10 The only message I hear from Iran is, "We want to defeat you." |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-07-02 15:46 |
| #9 But again, Iran was negotiating with Europe for 13 years all the while sponsoring the people bombing all of the world and still developing their capability and laughed about what suckers the Europeons are. I recall a Fatwa made by clerics in Iran that the development of nuclear bombs was "un-islamic". whats up? |
| Posted by: newc 2007-07-02 11:38 |
| #8 Consider the source, Iran is not as rosy as this guy wants you to believe. Their stock market is in taters, inflation is running out of control, foreign investment has dried up considerably, and people are rioting in the streets. But this smug asshole sits in his mountain villa and tries to convince a reporter that everything is well in hand. And he buys it hook, line and sinker. I think if we keep up the pressure, they are going to squeak, face saving or not. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2007-07-02 10:39 |
| #7 I got a message too: "Mene, mene, tekel upharshin." Wonder what it means. |
| Posted by: mojo 2007-07-02 10:24 |
| #6 At what point do we begin prosecuting journalists for treason? |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-07-02 09:43 |
| #5 Hirsh ignores the Potemkin village staged for his benefit. Either that or his agenda blinds him to reality. The latter. |
| Posted by: Skunky Glins5285 2007-07-02 08:21 |
| #4 Here's hoping the Bush administration lets this opening pass it by. The Iranians created this situation, the Iranians can fix it. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-07-02 07:49 |
| #3 Iran was broke before the Bush administration. Over 40% of the population is on the government payroll. And government wages are extremely low. The private sector is dominated by monopoly firms, owned by the Ayatollahs. The Koran mentions a "khums" tax in which 20% of all booty became the property of the "prophet." Shiites - but not Sunnis - claim that religious political leaders are entitled to "khums." This type of parasitism ensures continued backwardness in Iran. Conditions are ripe for both a commercial and democratic revolution. All that is needed is a US trigger. Axis of evil rhetoric won't do it. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-07-02 07:33 |
| #2 That's from Newsweek "We are not in business to report news but to form and influence opinions". ™ ©1979 |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-07-02 00:32 |
| #1 Best I can figure, we share no critical interests. Our interests are directly conflicting on all the major issues. Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel and oil come to mind. It would have been nice of the reporter to inform me of what these mutual interests are. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-07-02 00:26 |