Top Iranian Adviser Backs Nuclear Offer “In Principle”

A high-level adviser to Iran’s supreme leader today said that a six-nation proposal for breaking an international deadlock over Tehran’s controversial nuclear activities is acceptable “in principle,” the Financial Times reported (see GSN, July 1).

The five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany last month put forward an offer of political and economic incentives that Iran would receive for halting its uranium enrichment program, a process that has concerned Western powers because it can produce a key nuclear weapon ingredient.  Iran has long defended its enrichment program as an exclusively civilian effort while dismissing any international offers requiring its suspension.

In an interview with Jomhouri-Eslami, former Iranian Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Velayati said that rejecting the six-nation proposal would play into an U.S. and Israeli strategy of isolation by sending the message “that Iran is not for international work and negotiations.

“(If) those who act against our interests want us not to accept (the proposal), then our expedience is in accepting it,” the newspaper quoted him as saying. 

“They say Iran should not make an atomic bomb and we say Iran needs nuclear energy.  These two principles are your and our red lines which should be the basis for negotiations and (can be) agreed on,” he said.

Velayati suggested that Iran could temporarily stop expanding its enrichment capability if the Security Council halted moves to impose new sanctions in a “freeze-for-freeze” period, during which the sides would negotiate an agenda for future talks. 

However, the Iranian adviser said that Tehran could not accept a six-week limit on the freeze period proposed by the world powers because it is uncertain how long preliminary negotiations would take.

Iran would be required to halt all enrichment before actual negotiations could begin.

Iran experts often consider Velayati’s statements to reflect the opinions of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and diplomats called his statements a sign that Tehran is carefully considering the six-nation proposal (Bozorgmehr/Blitz, Financial Times I, July 2).

Velayati also made an apparent jab at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he cautioned that “(Iranian) officials … should avoid illogical and provocative sloganeering.  A certain declaration could cause us problems; we need to be careful not to make these declarations,” Time reported yesterday.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told U.S. journalists yesterday that he expects his government to respond formally to the six-nation proposal in a “couple of weeks” (Adam Zagorin, Time, July 1).

Mottaki’s remarks echoed Velayati’s hints that compromise is possible in the nuclear deadlock, the Wall Street Journal reported.

"We see the potential for a new round of talks," he said at Iran's U.N. mission in New York.  "The two sides are trying to see if they can arrive at a new modality."

Mottaki dismissed a recent Israeli military exercise as “psychological warfare” rather than preparations for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.  He contended that Israel lacks the capability to conduct such an attack and “it doesn’t seem like American public opinion would be able to accept another attack” following the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mottaki said there is potential for the six-nation package and a parallel Iranian proposal for talks, saying that a combination of "the two packages can put together a good agenda" for possible negotiations.

However, U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said yesterday that “no one is placing any bets” on actual negotiations taking place (Jay Solomon Wall Street Journal, July 2).

“If they were serious about wanting to take us up on that offer, then that would be welcome.  But I think we have every reason to be skeptical since we get mixed messages from them quite often,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said today.

“The best way for us to respond to it is to say that we'll see,” she added (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, July 2).

Some experts suggested that Iran continues to hint at possible compromise to delay new penalties for continuing its uranium enrichment, the New York Times reported.

“As usual, they’re trying to keep all of their options open,” said Abbas Milani, Stanford University’s Iranian studies director.  “They’re talking tough on one hand, hinting that they’re preparing for war, but also sending several signals that they’re willing to negotiate.”

Analysts continue to debate whether Tehran is showing more flexibility over its nuclear work amid rising concerns of a possible Israeli strike.

“Khamenei has always said you don’t compromise in the face of pressure, and this is the height of pressure,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  “This is the worst time to project a compromise.”

However, he added, “Stranger things have happened, I guess” (Helene Cooper, New York Times, July 2).

“The military option is the last thing that we need to do and it will not be used easily," a Western diplomat in Israel told Reuters.  "I don't think there will be an attack in the next six months."

When asked about the anonymous U.S. official’s claim that the threat of an Israeli attack on Iran is increasing, State Department spokesman Casey said:  "I have no information that would substantiate that. … The official State Department reaction to that is one, laughter, and saying 'Coward, get out there and talk about [it] on the record if you've actually got something to say'" (David Alexander, Reuters, July 1).

“If force is used it will be catastrophic for the whole Middle East,” a Russian Foreign Ministry official said today (Agence France-Presse/Google News, July 2).

Meanwhile, the Iranian parliament stated yesterday that Tehran could end all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency if new nuclear penalties are placed on Iran, RIA Novosti reported.

A statement signed by 201 of the body’s 209 members called on EU nations to focus on diplomacy rather than sanctions, and warned that new penalties could trigger an expansion of Iranian nuclear activities.

To date, the U.N. Security Council has imposed three sets of fairly light penalties on Iran for its refusal to halt uranium enrichment (RIA Novosti, July 1).

Elsewhere, a high-level foreign policy adviser to presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has said the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is the greatest threat to international security, the Financial Times reported yesterday.

“The most dangerous crisis we are going to face potentially in the next three to 10 years is if the Iranians get on the edge of developing a nuclear weapon,” said

Obama has vowed that, if elected president, he would speak in person with Iran’s top officials without first demanding concessions,” said Anthony Lake, a former U.S. national security adviser working with Obama’s campaign.  “If I were the Europeans I would much rather put on the table more sanctions, together with bigger carrots, and have that negotiation than I would face that crisis down the road.”

Obama has said that, if elected president, he would conduct direct talks with Iranian leaders without first demanding conditions.

“Unless you assume that (Iranian negotiators) have IQs less than those of eggplants, they are not likely to make major concessions for the privilege of speaking with us.  So the question is:  what is your strategy for the talks?”

“Do you believe that simply sanctioning them can drive them into concessions before you talk, or do you believe that you need to have the sanctions there as a stick at the heart of negotiations?” (Dombey/Luce, Financial Times II, July 1).

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.