Update [2006-5-31 10:59:43 by Steven D]: CNN confirms the story.
Update [2006-5-31 11:37:58 by Steven D]: #2 — Here’s the link to Rice’s full statement. (More below the fold)
The Mail & Guardian (online ed.) is now reporting that diplomatic sources say President Bush may agree to direct negotiations with Iran on the condition that Russia and China agree to support the US plan for sanctions in the Security Council:
The United States is ready for the first time to join talks with Iran over its nuclear programme, provided Russia and China agree to sanctions if Tehran refuses to limit its atomic ambitions, diplomats told Agence France-Presse on Wednesday.
A Western diplomat said the US was “willing to sit at the table with the Iranians” together with the four other permanent United Nations Security Council members plus Germany.
More below the fold . . .
I have no idea which diplomats are the source for this story, or how accurate their claims will turn out to be. We’ll have to wait and see. the rough outline appears to be similar to the six party talks that the Bush une.cadministration agreed to with North Korea regarding that nation’s nuclear activities.
Here are some more of the details from the report:
Such talks would focus on a package offering trade, security and technology incentives to Iran in return for guarantees that it will not develop nuclear weapons.
The proposals, drafted by a European Union troika that has negotiated with Iran, are to be discussed at a meeting of world powers on Thursday in Vienna.
The diplomat said Washington would only join multi-party talks “if Russia and China can agree on Thursday to key aspects of the package, including some specific future sanctions if Iran rejects it”.
<snip>
A White House spokesperson said on Tuesday that it was “glad” Iran had voiced a desire to restart talks with the EU troika of Britain, Germany and France.
The diplomat’s comments on the US considering multi-party talks were confirmed by another diplomat from a second member of the UN’s permanent five, made up of Britain, China, France, Russia and the US.
They asked not to be named.
“It’s not a done deal yet, but the US is definitely extending itself to try to get to ‘Yes’,” the first said of possible US participation in talks.
Update [2006-5-31 10:59:43 by Steven D]: CNN is now running this story where Conoleezza Rice is quoted on possible talks with Iran:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is prepared to join other nations in holding direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program if Iran first agrees to stop disputed nuclear activities that the West fears could lead to a bomb, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday.
“To underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table,” Rice said in remarks prepared for delivery at the State Department.
The Swiss ambassador to the United States was called to the State Department earlier Wednesday to receive a copy of Rice’s remarks for transmission to Iran, U.S. officials said. The United States has had no diplomatic ties with Iran and few contacts at all with its government since Islamic radicals took over the U.S. Embassy in 1979 and held diplomats there for more than a year.
Two things:
First: Yes, Iran must stop enrichment, but they are only doing limited research now so that really shouldn’t be a hold up. Re-starting up a research program on enrichment can be easily accomplished if the talks are unproductive, and it’s not like they are making bomb grade material with their limited program anyway.
Second: For the first time it appears that security assurances for Iran are on the table from the US, if the Mail and Guardian story is true. If that is the case it should strengthen the hands of the more moderate factions in the Iranian government, and make a negotiated settlement a more likely prospect. On the other hand, should it prove false, and the US is not prepared to offer any assurances on security matters to the Iranians, it is unlikely that Iran would be willing to suspend enrichment, or that China and Russia would agree to support sanctions.
Update [2006-5-31 11:37:58 by Steven D]: #2 — Here’s the complete text of Rice’s statement:
The pursuit by the Iranian regime of nuclear weapons represents a direct threat to the entire international community, including to the United States and to the Persian Gulf region. In defiance of repeated calls from the IAEA Board of Governors and from the Security Council, the Iranian government has accelerated its nuclear program while continuing to conceal its activities from international inspectors.
Working with our international partners, the United States is making every effort to achieve a successful diplomatic outcome, but the international community has made clear that the Iranian regime must not acquire nuclear weapons. The vital interests of the United States, of our friends and allies in the region, and of the entire international community are at risk, and the United States will act accordingly to protect those common interests.
Today, the Iranian regime can decide on one of two paths – one of two fundamentally different futures for its people and for its relationship with the international community.
The Iranian government’s choices are clear. The negative choice is for the regime to maintain its current course, pursuing nuclear weapons in defiance of the international community and its international obligations.
If the regime does so, it will incur only great costs.
We and our European partners agree that path will lead to international isolation and progressively stronger political and economic sanctions.
The positive and constructive choice is for the Iranian regime to alter its present course and cooperate in resolving the nuclear issue, beginning by immediately resuming suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, as well as full cooperation with the IAEA and returning to implementation of the Additional Protocol providing greater access for the IAEA.
This path would lead to the real benefit and longer-term security of the Iranian people, the region, and the world as a whole.
The Iranian people believe they have the right to civil nuclear energy. We acknowledge that right. Yet the international agreements Iran has signed make clear that Iran’s exercise of that right must conform with its commitments. In view of its previous violations of its commitments and the secret nuclear program it undertook, the Iranian regime must persuasively demonstrate that it has permanently abandoned its quest for nuclear weapons.
The benefits of this second path for the Iranian people would go beyond civil nuclear energy, and could include progressively greater economic cooperation.
The United States will actively support these benefits both publicly and privately. Furthermore, President Bush has consistently emphasized that the United States is committed to a diplomatic solution to the nuclear challenge posed by the Iranian regime.
We are agreed with our European partners on the essential elements of a package containing both the benefits if Iran makes the right choice, and the costs if it does not. We hope that in the coming days the Iranian government will thoroughly consider this proposal.
Our British, French and German partners have rightly required that Iran fully and verifiably suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities before the sides can return to negotiations. This is the condition that has been established by the IAEA Board of Governors and by the UN Security Council.
The United States is willing to exert strong leadership to give diplomacy its very best chance to succeed.
Thus, to underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance the prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table with our EU-3 colleagues and meet with Iran’s representatives.
This morning US representatives have conveyed my statement to Iran through the good offices of the Swiss government, and through Iran’s representative to the United Nations.
Given the benefits of this positive path for the Iranian people, regional security, and the nuclear nonproliferation regime, we urge Iran to make this choice for peace — to abandon its ambition for nuclear weapons.
President Bush wants a new and positive relationship between the American people and the people of Iran — a beneficial relationship of increased contacts in education, cultural exchange, sports, travel, trade, and investment. The nuclear issue is not the only obstacle standing in the way of improved relations.
The Iranian government supports terror, is involved in violence in Iraq, and is undercutting the restoration of full sovereignty in Lebanon under UN Security Council Resolution 1559. These policies are out of step with the international community and are barriers to a positive relationship between the Iranian people and the people of the United States and the rest of the world.
Iran can and should be a responsible state, not the leading state sponsor of terror. The United States is ready to join the EU-3 to press these and other issues with the Iranian government in addition to our work to resolve the nuclear danger.
At the same time, we will continue to work with our international partners to end the proliferation trade globally, to bar all proliferators from international financial resources, and to end support for terror. We also intend to work with our friends and allies to strengthen their defensive capacity, counterproliferation and counterterrorism efforts, and energy security capabilities.
Those measures present no threat to a peaceful Iran with a transparent, purely civil nuclear energy program, but provide essential protection for the United States, our friends and allies if the Iranian regime chooses the wrong path.
If the Iranian regime believes that it will benefit from the possession of nuclear weapons, it is mistaken. The United States will be steadfast in defense of our forces, and steadfast in defense of our friends and allies who wish to work together for common security.
The Iranian people have a proud past, and merit a great future. We believe the Iranian people want a future of freedom and human rights-– the right to vote, to run for office, to express their views without fear, and to pursue political causes. We would welcome the progress, prosperity, and freedom of the Iranian people.
The United States looks forward to a new relationship between our peoples that advances these goals. We sincerely hope that the Iranian regime will choose to make that future possible.
Also posted at Daily Kos
Steven, your link has a problem.
This shoulld work: LINK
Cautiously optimistic — but skeptical.
It’s a trap. Straight up. It’s all about getting Russia and China to back the U.S. at the U.N. This put’s those two countries in a tight spot right now doesn’t it?
Bush don’t do negotiations! Remember when Congress authorized the President to use force in Iraq “to strengthen his hand at the negotiating table”? Of course, Bush claims he “reluctantly” went to war in Iraq “as a last resort”, but we know he had a hard one for Saddam since Poppy Bush got dissed for not taking Saddam out.
The neocon PNAC is to reshape the entire middle east. Bush has said that much in speeches. The bottom line for him is regime change in Tehran not preventing Iran from getting a nuke which they couldn’t for at least 10 years anyway.
Please note what El Baradei said just yesterday that Iran is NOT an immediate threat and sanctions may or will be counterproductive like they were in North Korea. He warned about a rush to war in Iran.
Don’t trust Bush. Don’t believe Bush.
Yeah, I agree it’s a total trap.
I don’t know about the tight spot though. Seems like Russia and China are two countries as immune from peer pressure as any in the world right now.
The reason I say it puts pressure on those two countries is because if they decline Bush’s offer, they will be seen, rightly or wrongly, as not being commited to moving the issue forward. At least that is how Bush will spin it. Which gives them the out that they will need when and if it comes time for more preemptive and unilateral action. Just like with Iraq. Bush can say, we trid to handle this through the proper diplomatic channels, but our security will be defended regardless of the opinions of other countries.
I agree. The whole purpose of this little charade is to be able to spin the story in Bush’s favor.
I’m, sadly, completely convinced that Bush intends to start an air war before the November elections no matter what. And this is just the next step in the master plan.
I assume that the sanctions would fall under the proposed Article VII resolution. Hasn’t China been adamant that there be no Article VII resolution?
I don’t see China agreeing to the Article VII resolution just because the Americans say that they will “talk” to Iran when anyone with any knowledge of America’s past performance in “talks” (think North Korea) knows they don’t come to anything. And in fact:
So nobody expects these talks to resolve the issue. Then what? Sanctions? Then “enforcement” actions.
I don’t see China falling for this. And they don’t have to fall for anything these days — they OWN the United States’ economy.
Iran would probably agree to nothing unless it had some sort of guarantee that the US won’t attack Iran. The US would never agree to that unless and until Iran agrees to all US demands, and maybe not even then if Bush is determined to attack. This deal where we agree to talk as long as sanctions are on the table could be a non starter with Russia and China. They have a lot to loose economically.
Could it be that the US is trying to appear reasonable while assuring that talks will go nowhere? That way Bush can throw up his hands and say “We tried” while the bombs are dropping. I hope against hope that they are serious, but I can’t help but be cynical.
This is “stick and kick” diplomacy. Take a stick upside the head or a steel toed boot up the other end.
Phoney diplomacy.
I agree with other commenters that it’s a propaganda ploy that Russia and China will not fall for, allowing Bush to start a war with Iran saying: “We tried. But no one is will go to bat for security like we will. So we’ll be going it alone again (except for maybe Tony Blair).”
What’s interesting to consider is the second-order, longer-term fallout from this: It plays into the hands of individuals in governments around the world who are calling for new alliances against the US to be formed, because “obviously the US doesn’t negotiate in good faith; they cannot be trusted.”
Just another step in formation of new power blocks opposed to us, and we’ll be left with few if any allies: Australia, Canada (but only until the Conservatives are removed), England (only until Blair is removed), maybe Japan? Even those assumed allied nations have good reasons to oppose us – or at least hold us at arms length – as well.
At best, we get a new cold war, but in a far weaker position than in the previous one (actually, our situation will look a lot like the USSR’s once our oil is cut off). At worst, it devolves into WWIII.
As usual, no good comes from anything having to do with this administration. The odds of an oil boycott and China et. al. pulling the plug on out debt go way up if Bush tries to pull one over on Russia and China and then goes to war with Iran.
The odds of an oil boycott and China et. al. pulling the plug on out debt go way up if Bush tries to pull one over on Russia and China and then goes to war with Iran.
You’re thinking in the long term and I agree. But I’m wondering if China is daring enough in the short term to create an economic disturbance in the United States without pulling the plug on the debt totally.
China has a huge investment in the U.S. Since there is no realistic alternative (right now) for those invested funds, it isn’t in China’s best interests to destroy its investment by pulling the plug entirely in the next few months.
But China could certainly cause intentional short term economic disruption as a means of exercising some indirect control over US policy. Yes, it would hurt China in the short term too — but maybe less than the economic effects of dealing with an invasion of Iran.
I just don’t know if China could get beyond its conservative tendencies and create enough an economic disturbance in, say, September/October that it would increase business pressure on Bush to draw back from his Iranian plans. And IMO only business pressure has a chance of doing it (and even that’s a small chance, the man’s so pig headed).
China’s got a very simple way to create some economic disturbance in the US, and strengthen its own domestic economy at the same time.
Cut manufacturing exports. Reallocate the manpower and capital to domestic work. Ooops, there goes Wal-Mart.
Yes, but I imagine that would take some time to implement and would probably shake up more than the US.
I was thinking more along the lines of a few strategic announcements in late summer regarding their “concern” over continuing investment in US debt securities. Announcements that don’t say the concern is connected to Iran, but clearly are intended to convey their dismay over the Iran policy and the financial ramifications of continuing that policy. Then some actual action in September with respect to their cash investments. Something to shake up the markets and the business base of the Republican party. But something that China could back off of fairly easily.
I don’t really want to see China pull the plug on US investment because in any economic crisis it’s the people with little or nothing who suffer the most in terms of tangible hardship. But China is certainly in a position to influence US policy on military actions. Since they are, basically, financing those actions.
That speech of hers is a major piece of misinformation and disinformation.
She’s making them an offer they can’t accept.
Absolutely. Always amazes me when politicians can talk/talk and talk and say nothing of any real significance. I think their theory must be that if they throw enough words at you you’ll be blinded by the length of their speech and believe if they can talk that much they must have thought all this through.