Friday, August 01, 2008

No real shift in US position

ug.1, 2008


No real shift in US position

SPECULATION is rife that the administration of US President George W Bush has taken a dramatic turn in its approach towards Iran and that was why the number three official in the State Department, William Burns, attended a meeting between the European Union's Javier Solana and Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili in Geneva last month. The US move caused surprise because it contradicted the stated Bush administration policy of not getting directly involved in talks with Iran on the nuclear dispute and a belief that Washington was edging towards military action against Iran.
Many theories are being forwarded to explain what American commentators call a "Rockford" (i.e. a 180 degree turn) in Washington's tactics. These include the record shoot-up in international oil prices, "realisation" of the full magnitude of possible Iranian retaliation and Bush's tactics to help John McCain succeed him as the next occupant of the White House.
However, all these theories come into play only if there is indeed a "Rockford" turn in Washington's approach to the nuclear dispute. And there is no sign whatsoever of such shift, particularly that Burns was sent to Geneva not to open any new doors but to reaffirm the US position and set a three-month deadline for Tehran to meet Washington's demands (and knowing well that Tehran would never accept those demands).
The US has not changed its position that Iran must freeze nuclear enrichment activities before substantial negotiations can take place.
The US has not abandoned its insistence that Iran must abandon control of the entire nuclear fuel cycle.
The US has not given up its self-assumed right to take "pre-emptive" military action against Iran.
The US has not suspended its campaign for more punitive economic sanctions against Iran.
The US has not called off its funding for Iranian dissident groups that are trying to destabilise the government of Iran.
The US has not stopped blaming Iran for the troubles that the US military faces in Iraq.
Overall, there is no reason to see any shift in the US drive to deny Iran its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to use the nuclear issue to isolate Iran and stage military action against it in order to bring about "regime change" in Tehran and serve American/Israeli strategic interests in the Middle East.
A real shift in the US position would mean Washington being ready to engage Tehran in a "dialogue of equals" in terms of sovereign rights and decisions with no preconditions. That is definitely not happening.
If anything, fears are very much alive today that there could be a "false flag operation" that could trigger US military action against Iran. Whether Bush or McCain or Barack Obama is in the White House at that point would not make any difference because none of the three would bother to investigate and verify who pulled the strings in the operation and would only order immediate military strikes against Iran.