Can dialogue between US and Iran be possible?

Thirty-three years ago, the U.S. unilaterally severed all diplomatic relations with Iran. Since then, the two countries have been in a tough confrontation on many key issues. The Iranian authorities have repeatedly declared their readiness to negotiate with the United States as equitable and mutually respectful parties. However, Washington always breaches the negotiation process.

Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, favors direct talks with Washington, but doubts their productivity. In early February, Khamenei said that he refused direct talks with the U.S. about settling the situation around the Iranian nuclear program. According to Khamenei, Washington's goal is not to achieve an agreement with Tehran, but to put pressure on this Islamic republic. During negotiations, Iran wants to convince partners in their legal right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and uranium enrichment. In late February of this year in Almaty negotiations of the "six" international mediators (the U.S., France, Britain, Russia, Germany, and China) and Iran took place. Representatives of the world leading countries submitted their updated proposal on the nuclear issue to Tehran, and representatives of the Islamic Republic submitted their response.

Can dialogue between US and Iran be possible?. 49756.jpeg

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly reaffirmed his readiness to hold talks with the U.S. authorities. The main condition was a mutual respect for each other. However, there was no constructive dialogue. The President of Iran said that Iran has never done anything wrong against the American people, while the U.S. government has been constantly taking actions against the Iranian people. He continued that the two powerful states have been in confrontation for 33 years, but current international relations dictated completely different conditions. He stressed that the current situation between the United States and Iran could not continue, therefore, it must be normalized.

However, the U.S. does not display particular willingness for a dialogue. In addition, the United States on February 6 issued another tranche of tougher sanctions against Iran, aimed at reducing Iran's revenues from oil sales. Washington shortened the list of countries allowed to import Iranian oil.

Experts have been supporting the idea of ​​direct talks between Tehran and Washington. It seems that very soon the antagonists will sit at a negotiating table, which would provide a breakthrough for a variety of issues. Some experts believe that these negotiations are imperative for the Islamic Republic because the future of Iran depends on their outcome. However, an objective analysis of the situation suggests a different conclusion.      

Before talking about the future, let's take a look at the past. The Islamic revolution in Iran was a real shock to Jimmy Carter's administration. For nearly a year the White House could not determine what to do with the loss of an important ally in the region. Carter ordered to freeze all Iranian assets in U.S. banks and imposed an embargo on Iranian oil.

On January 20, 1981 Iran, immediately following the appointment of President Ronald Reagan, as a sign of goodwill gave hostages to the U.S. authorities. At the times it seemed that this step would start the US-Iranian dialogue. However, there were no reasonable decisions by the United States. On the contrary, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein, who started the Iran-Iraq war. The goal of the White House has always been a desire to return Tehran to the mainstream politics of Washington. But Iran did not want to submit. In addition, as the price of oil went up, it began rapidly gaining geopolitical and geo-economic weight. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, Washington turned Tehran to the "axis of evil", clearly implying that nothing would stop them in achieving their goal.

At this time, the CIA has stepped up to work with terrorists and separatists in Iran. The main goal was still the overthrow of the current Iranian regime. With the arrival of the first presidential term of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June of 2005, the Bush administration began putting together an anti-Iranian coalition based on "the Iranian nuclear threat." Transfer of "the Iranian nuclear dossier" to the UN Security Council, pushing through the appropriate Security Council resolutions, and the campaign to toughen sanctions are the official instruments of external U.S. pressure on Iran.

At the same time, under the slogan "NO to the Iranian nuclear threat", the U.S. along with Israel began conducting terrorist and subversive acts against Iranian nuclear facilities and nuclear scientists. This produced no results. The "Arab Spring" has destroyed the usual political map of the Middle East. New strong players emerged on the arena. Iran is stronger than ever, even in spite of all sanctions. In order to preserve its own hegemony, Washington needs to create the new system of checks and balances in the East. Yet, this is impossible without Iran. 

The U.S. will not be able to maintain its influence in the East without Iran. This is understood by everyone. The question arises - who needs the talks? Is it Iran that learned to survive and thrive in adverse conditions over 33 years? Or is it the U.S., trying to influence the processes in the East? The importance of negotiations with Iran is indirectly supported by the fact that the Western media began talking about Iran's unwillingness to negotiate. They talk about "irrational anti-Americanism" of the Iranian government. American media claim that the U.S. administration has always had a personal affection for Iran that in turn created the image of the United States as an external enemy." As always, double American standards are in play.

Iran has never refused a dialogue with the United States, only on the condition of a respectful, equal and fair treatment of their interests. However, every time the Americans deceive Iran. This deception will be repeated again and again. Washington is not ready for serious negotiations, its proposals and appeals are the usual diplomatic maneuver and a desire to win time to regroup its forces in the region. Obama's statement on the continuation of the dialogue with the Iranian leadership is just cunning. The U.S. does not want to resolve the Iranian-American issues, it has one goal it has been dreaming about for three decades - to replace the current leadership of the Islamic Republic. 

Officially, the U.S. says they want the Iranian leadership to:

Not produce weapons of mass destruction;

Not interfere in the internal affairs of neighboring states;

Not support terrorists;

Provide its people the right for democratic elections (of course, in the American sense).

The Americans believe that these issues should be the subject of negotiations. 

However, the real goal (and real steps) of the U.S. foreign policy toward Iran simply are to: establish an international anti-Iranian coalition among the countries bordering Iran; 

Surround the Islamic Republic with a network of military bases;

Destroy the Assad regime in Syria to weaken Iran's influence in Lebanon;

Provide tough resistance against Iran's willingness to expand its influence in the Persian Gulf;

weaken Iran's relations with Russia and China;

Prevent the Iranian leadership in the "Islamic revival."

A destabilization of the situation in Iran is the main task of the United States. Today it is not evident that the Americans could abandon these goals. So what negotiations are possible in this situation? One can hardly expect a major breakthrough in the Iranian-American relations.

Sergei Vasilenkov

Pravda.Ru

Read the original in Russian