Iran Talks Slated For Oct 1 (Updated)

By Steve Hynd

Iran and the six powers -- the United States, France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia -- have agreed to hold a meeting on October 1st to begin wide-ranging talks. It's the first time the U.S. will be directly involved in such talks and it means I have to eat a little bit of crow. I didn't think Obama was any more serious about wanting diplomacy than the pro-Israel hawks in his administration who simply wanted to create more "strategic ambiguity". Robert Naiman serves up my dish:

when he said he was going to talk to Iran, apparently he meant it. Who knew?

It could have gone the other way. The US could have said -- we offered Iran talks on how Iran was going to stop enriching uranium, and Iran has clearly said that it has no intention of stopping the enrichment of uranium, therefore, Iran has not agreed to our offer of talks.

And therefore, we have no choice but to proceed with efforts to cut off Iran's access to gas imports.

As everyone knows, there are plenty of folks in Washington -- and at least one other capital city -- who would have applauded such a course.

But Obama decided to take the high road. We said we wanted talks, and Iran is saying that it wants talks, so let's talk. Why not?

There's still plenty of time for Obama, who has constantly referred to Iran's nuclear weapons program as if it were real, to decide that the talks are a wash and so back to Neo-whatever Plan A. So I'm only having a taste of crow, for now. There are two ways to go about these talks - the bright way and the hawk way. Robert Gibbs, who is in my view a contender for worst press secretary ever, exemplified the dumb, wrong, hawkish way.

�We�re not talking for talking�s sake. This may not have been a topic they wanted to be brought up, but I can assure you it�s a topic that we�ll bring up.

The Iranians have a responsibility to the international community to walk away from their illicit nuclear weapons program. That�s what the focus from our side will be in these talks, and that�s our goal.�

And then there's the bright way. Expert Geoffrey Forden notes that there's plenty of intersection between even the new Iranian proposals and the West's June 2008 one, and writes :

Iran�s 2008 submission contained a number of important points on the nuclear issue that I hope we can incorporate in the coming talks. First, and most important, is Iran�s suggestion that the talks include �Establishing enrichment and nuclear fuel production consortiums in different parts of the world� including Iran .� (Emphasis added.) I believe, and my colleague John Thomson and I have written extensively about just this point since 2006, that such consortiums are the best way of ensuring that Iran does not get a nuclear bomb. It is my understanding that Iran�s 2008 proposals are still on the table, though this submission might supersede them. This is one advantage of Iran�s proposal not containing an explicit section on the nuclear issue. We should simply assume that these proposals continue to be on the table and ask them �What do you mean by international consortiums?� Surprisingly, the West has never asked this question even though Iran has, at the highest levels, brought this item up a number of times.

A friend in the know tells me that while public U.S. rhetoric has followed the Gibbs style, in private the talk is far more towards the sensible end of the spectrum. Hope for change, indeed. The hawks will not be happy and will be piling on to ensure these talks sink.

Update: Iran's nuclear energy agency head says there's an opening for substantative progress.

Salehi said Iran favoured unconditional dialogue and "it seems the environment now is conducive... We are hopeful that the dialogue that will be held next month will pave the way further for the future," Salehi added, speaking in English.

..."We have to differentiate between our sovereign rights. No country really bargains on its sovereign rights...we believe that nuclear technology, the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear energy is our sovereign right," said Salehi.

"But this does not mean that within a larger framework discussing nuclear issues - disarmament, peaceful uses of nuclear energy, non-proliferation - these are all issues which are of concern to everybody internationally." 

Asked whether it was possible Iran would engage in any discussion with the powers related to its own nuclear programme, he replied: "As long as that right (to a sovereign nuclear programme) is respected, then there is no problem."

Very promising.