Worldview: On talks, Iranians shift tone and tactics

By Trudy Rubin

Inquirer Opinion Columnist

There has been a flurry of speculation in Washington about whether President Bush will authorize an attack on Iran's nuclear sites before his term ends.

Sy Hersh has a new piece in the New Yorker detailing Bush's authorization of escalated covert ops against Iran. Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz has warned that military action looks "unavoidable" given Iran's nuclear program. Israel recently carried out expanded air exercises over the Mediterranean.

But the really interesting Iran story is not whether there will be an American or Israeli attack. I believe either is highly unlikely. The big story is whether Iran will preempt such a risk by re-engaging in talks on the nuclear issue.

Tehran has mounted an unexpected diplomatic charm offensive in the waning days of the Bush term, which might be a clever ploy, but also could offer a real chance to defuse tensions with Iran - if not in this administration, then in the next.

For two years, negotiations over Iran's nuclear program had been going nowhere. The Bush administration and the European Union have insisted Tehran suspend enrichment of uranium in a nuclear program they think once was, and could again be, geared to producing weapons.

The Americans and Europeans have demanded that the suspension precede any talks. Buoyed by high oil prices, Iran has refused. It has ignored new economic sanctions by the U.N. Security Council, while insisting its program is peaceful. Two weeks ago, Bush said Iran had rejected a new package of incentives handed to Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, by European Union foreign-policy chief Javier Solana.

But Iranian signals to the contrary have been flying fast and furious - in New York, Tehran and Paris.

On Monday, Mottaki went out of his way to stress improved prospects for negotiations, at a lunch in New York I attended for senior U.S. journalists. "In the recent visit by Solana," he said, "we saw the potential for a new round of talks."

He refused, though asked repeatedly, to recite the Iranian mantra that it would never forgo its right to enrich uranium for nuclear power. When pressed, he said, "You can say the foreign minister did not make any comment on the question of enrichment."

This might be dismissed as word games were it not for other statements coming out of Tehran. In an interview with a leading Iranian newspaper, former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati - a close adviser to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - said it was "expedient" for Iran to accept the Solana offer. Solana had proposed that talks start with a six-week mutual freeze: Iran would stop expanding its enrichment program, while the Security Council would refrain from new sanctions. Meantime, the two sides would work out an agenda.

This "freeze-for-freeze" idea was discussed by Iranian and European negotiators two years ago, but was shot down by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Which leads me to note another interesting signal out of Tehran and Paris: an article written by Velayati in the French paper Liberation, which was seen by Iran experts as a public slap at Ahmadinejad. In the article, Velayati stresses that only Ayatollah Khamenei makes foreign policy. He added that Iranian politicians should "avoid illogical provocative statements."

So, is the top Iranian leadership trying to cool down their hothead president and head off a military strike by restarting talks? That could be one explanation for the Iranian shift in tone and tactics. But there are tantalizing hints that more could be involved.

"This is taking a lot of people by surprise," said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council. Parsi said one Iranian consideration could be "buying time so as to virtually eliminate the risk of attack" before the end of the Bush term.

Yet, as Parsi noted, the chances of such an attack are slim. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently warned that "opening up a third front right now," with Iran, "would be extremely stressful on us." No doubt he was thinking about the prospects of Iran's retaliating by blocking oil routes or against U.S. troops in Iraq.

At the lunch meeting, Mottaki was dismissive of the prospects for a U.S. attack, saying: "We don't believe this war would happen. One reason is that the consequences of such a war cannot be predicted." He added, "It does not seem American public opinion . . . would be willing to accept another attack." He also said the chance of an Israeli attack "is almost nil" after Israel's "defeat in Lebanon." Talk of war was "psychological warfare" by the West, he said.

But let's say Iran's moves were partly intended to counter the slightest chance of attack. Might they not have more in mind?

Parsi thinks that the Iranians are looking toward the next presidency and that they see themselves in a position of strength. With oil prices high, and America's ability to attack low, Iran may be more interested in diplomacy (although it's unclear how much Tehran will be willing to compromise on key security issues).

"If they want to make sure they can pursue diplomacy [under a new president], they need to do something to make it easier," Parsi said. "Why not prepare the grounds, and have a new president come in with a situation that makes it easier to go for diplomacy, so he won't look weak?"

Should that next president be Barack Obama, who has been open to talks with Iran, said Parsi, "the Iranians don't want to look like hawks." On the other hand, should the more hawkish John McCain win, it would be harder to avoid talks that were already under way.

Parsi added that a public debate was under way among leading Iranian figures on "how successful the Ahmadinejad line [of confronting the West] can be in the future."

Indeed, Mottaki indicated Iran might be willing to let the United States have diplomatic personnel in Tehran for the first time since the revolution, with a presence short of an embassy. The State Department is very interested in this possibility.

The bottom line: For a variety of reasons, Iranian leaders may be open to talks, and willing to restrain the incendiary Ahmadinejad. Talks could be a trap, or they could be an opportunity, but Iran is trying to make sure that the next president has to negotiate, not bomb.

Contact columnist Trudy Rubin

at 215-854-5823 or trubin@phillynews.com.

Read her recent work at http://go.philly.com/trudyrubin.