The entire buzz started when US State Department’s third ranking official, Under Secretary William Burns, went to Geneva to join Washington’s allies at a negotiating table with Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator.
The meeting in Geneva was the first time US and Iranian officials have held face-to-face talks about Iran's controversial nuclear programme. No doubt it led many to believe that the US is softening its policy towards Iran. However, Condolezza Rice brushed off any such doubts making it clear that it was more of a ‘tactical’ change rather than a substantive change in policy.
Still, the fact that Iran has been declining to stop or minimize its uranium enrichment even after being isolated from the international community and the imposed sanctions and will continue to do so in the coming years, questions the thought which led the US government to send its representative to Geneva. Did the Bush administration believe that by holding face to face talks with Iran, it would be able to glare down the intentions of the Iranian government regarding its uranium enrichment? Or did the US tried to placate the Iranian government into altering their stance by showing a sudden shift in their policy? Or is it true that it is all part of promoting a peace policy regarding the Middle East, keeping in mind their natural oil reserves and the rising oil prices.
Whatever the reason might be, the US government once again failed in their attempts to make Iran do what they believe. Infact, they believe that Iranians were being unserious in their talks. Burns and even Secretary Rice seem to agree the concession bore little fruit. “Well, we expected to hear an answer from the Iranians,” she told reporters, “but as has been the case so many times with the Iranians, what came through was not serious.”
What is being perceived as ‘not serious’ is in actual Iran’s strong determination to stand strong on what they believe, regardless of the consequences.Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, after the meeting and the two weeks grace period given by US and its allies to undertake a ‘positive’ decision, made it very clear that “the Iranian people are steadfast and will not retreat one iota in the face of oppressing powers.” The President also stuck to his claim of defining his country’s nuclear plan as that for peaceful purposes.
However, amongst all the denial and stubbornness, another surprise which poked from just around the corner was Ahmadinejad’s optimistic appraisal for the US government. He does believe that by participating directly in the talks, the US has taken a step towards recognizing Tehran’s right to nuclear energy.
Furthermore, praising Burns, Ahmadinejad told thousands of supporters gathered in the southern Iranian town of Yasouj that he "spoke politely and in a dignified manner."
Many analysts are hopeful that the two countries are attempting to strengthen ties after officials spoke positively to the possibility of opening an interests section in Tehran after closing its embassy here decades ago. However, the Iranian President warned that such possibilities may not occur “if the positive step you took through irrelevant words and claims.”
This simmers down the hopes and views of the analysts since Rice apparently believes Iran to be not serious. And this statement might not be music to the ears of the Iranian President.
However, despite of the optimism lingering in the air, things remain to be where they were before. None of the two countries are ready to step back on stance. To the world it may appear that Bush, after all the years of raging war, has preferred to adopt the diplomatic route even after the fact that there are still those in the administration who advocate the use of the military option, if necessary, to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state.
Still, many wonder if US, the world lone super power, have the guts to go to war with a country that have for so long stood strong against the entire international community and continue to do so.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed