May 24, 2006

KHAMENEI BRINGS AHMEDINEJAD TO HEEL:

Iran Requests Direct Talks on Nuclear Program (Karl Vick and Dafna Linzer, May 24, 2006, Washington Post)

The eagerness for talks demonstrates a profound change in Iran's political orthodoxy, emphatically erasing a taboo against contact with Washington that has both defined and confined Tehran's public foreign policy for more than a quarter-century, they said. [...]

"You know, two months ago nobody would believe that Mr. Khamenei and Mr. Ahmadinejad together would be trying to get George W. Bush to begin negotiations," said Saeed Laylaz, a former government official and prominent analyst in Tehran. "This is a sign of changing strategy. They realize the situation is dangerous and they should not waste time, that they should reach out." [...]

Earlier attempts at outreach to Washington have been thwarted by conservatives. "The tradition is the hard-liners need American hostility," the analyst said. The most serious attempt was by Ahmadinejad's predecessor, reformist cleric Mohammad Khatami.

"When Khatami tried to do it, the leader rejected it," said the European diplomat. "But I guess they're worried enough. People don't want sanctions. Domestically, it's a good move."

Indeed, by last week, a prominent member of Iran's conservative parliament made headlines proposing talks with members of Congress.

"The taboo of the discussion is gone, but I don't think they've formed a consensus about normalization of relations," said a Western diplomat in Tehran. "But 'let's talk to the Americans' -- that was very controversial until recently."

The change appears rooted at least partly in Iran's political scene, now dominated entirely by conservatives. Pillar pointed out that with reformists driven from government, conservatives no longer fear that political credit for renewing contact with Washington will accrue to a rival domestic force. The Iranian public strongly favors restoring ties.


They've handed us a wedge that we aren't smart enough to drive through their regime--President Bush should accept the offer but to speak directly with Ayatollah Khamenei.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 24, 2006 9:06 AM
Comments

What makes anyone think this so-called tension between Ahamd---- & Kham----- isn't just another "good cop, bad cop" routine.

They seem fairly desparate for talks, so why give in? If it is in our interests, then Bush's first demand should be that he gets to address the entire nation first (where he picks the translators).

Posted by: Bruno at May 24, 2006 9:44 AM

History, not least the fact that those who claim that--mostly neocons--have biffed Iran every step of the way.

Posted by: oj at May 24, 2006 9:50 AM

We're at war with Iran. They are actively supporting attacks in Iraq and the major sponsor of terrorism throughout the Middle East. The only topic suitable for discussion is their surrender.

Posted by: jd watson [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2006 11:32 AM

The change appears rooted at least partly in Iran's political scene, now dominated entirely by conservatives. Pillar pointed out that with reformists driven from government, conservatives no longer fear that political credit for renewing contact with Washington will accrue to a rival domestic force. The Iranian public strongly favors restoring ties.

So the effect of our entering talks would be to enhance the standing of Iran's "conservatives" with the Iranian people, and there's no hope of driving a wedge between "reformists" and "conservatives" because the "reformists" have been utterly defeated. Remind me - what's our motive for entering talks?

Posted by: pj at May 24, 2006 12:14 PM

Khamenei is the reformer. Khatami was a tool.

Posted by: oj at May 24, 2006 12:59 PM

Their discussion will go one of two ways.

Either -

**********

President Bush: "Grand Ayatollah, I understand we have a mutual problem".

Khameini: "Thank you - and soon."

**********
Or -

President Bush: "Grand Ayatollah, I understand we have a mutual problem".

Khameini: "WTF?"

**********

While I lean more towards the former (due to this blog), the latter is not even improbable.

Posted by: jim hamlen at May 24, 2006 2:33 PM

Ah, but the point is that if Khamenei agreed to the meeting it would render Ahmedinejad an afterthought anyway.

Posted by: oj at May 24, 2006 2:37 PM
« OTHER THAN BEING CHOSEN [AND LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC ALLIES] WHAT MAKES THEM SO SPECIAL? (via Tom Morin) | Main | SEEN TO BY SOMEONE: »