What Iran means by 'yes'
Posted: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:16 AM
Filed Under:
Tehran, Iran
By Ian Williams, NBC News correspondent
I can now understand why Ali Larijani was chosen as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, and can sympathize with those who sit opposite him at the negotiating table.
He is also head of Iran’s powerful Supreme National Security Council, and with President Ahmadinejad abroad, it was left to the wily Larijani to answer questions about whether
Iran would attend a regional security conference on Iraq – a conference that will involve the highest-level contact with the United States in more than two years.
His answer was variously interpreted as "yes," "yes, maybe," "yes, sort of," and "I’m thinking about it." Even the Iranian media couldn’t quite figure it out.
What he actually said, according to the English translation on the official Iranian news agency web site, was this, "We will participate in a conference of Iraqi neighboring states in Baghdad in March, if it will be of help to Baghdad."
He also said he didn’t regard the United States, or the members of the U.N. Security Council, as "neighboring states," and Iraq’s foreign minister now says that while Iran has accepted the invitation Tehran still has "some questions."
Clear as mud?
In my reports for NBC News, I described Larijani’s words as a "cautious yes," and after more conversations here in Tehran, I can fill that out a bit further.
I think Tehran quite likes the idea of participating in discussions about Iraq’s future, because this gives Iran recognition as a key player, but it is very suspicious about the agenda, and is worries it might all degenerate into a bout of finger-pointing over the Iran’s alleged arming of Shite militias.
There’s also a degree of confusion here about the apparent change of tack in Washington – one minute there’s Vice President Dick Cheney talking grimly about all options being on the table in dealing with Tehran’s nuclear program; next moment there’s Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging the mullahs to play a constructive role in Iraq.
There’s also the question of where Iran’s real interests lie. Hardliners here clearly revel in seeing Washington bogged down in Iraq, and in this sense continued chaos next door is just fine. There is a view here that while American lives continue to be lost in Iraq, there is no great appetite for military adventurism in Iran.
On the other hand, pragmatists, who are becoming more outspoken, are extremely worried that sanctions could hurt Iran, and are encouraged by the prospects of dialogue. These people, appalled by Ahmadinejad’s hectoring style, and encouraged by his declining popularity, don’t want to see Tehran further isolated. They believe meaningful discussion over Iraq could also pave the way for progress on nukes.
Iran’s official position may become clearer after Ahmadinejad returns from Sudan, where he’s been maintaining his fiery anti-American rhetoric. But the fact he’s calling into Saudi Arabia on the way back – and has sent top envoys to Beijing – suggests he is taking the diplomacy seriously.
For my part, I think the Iranians will be at the table in Baghdad on March 10, but they’ll be testing the water before making any firm commitment to further, high level talks.
That’s my take on what they're up to – maybe, sort of.
