The US and Iran: A New Tenor or the Same Old Tune?

Spiegel Online:

With a small gesture to Europe over the weekend -- that it may consider giving Iran WTO membership if it gives up its nuke ambitions -- Washington has given the EU a major carrot for its negotiations with Tehran. But does this signal a shift to a more multilateral Washington? German papers can't decide. READ MORE

The Bush administration gave the first sign this weekend that it might actually offer some warmth of the tangible variety to follow up its February charm offensive in Europe. On Saturday, Condoleezza Rice confirmed earlier media reports that Washington would be willing to consider World Trade Organization membership for Tehran if the mullahs were to give up their uranium enrichment efforts and their plans to build a nuclear bomb. Rice's words have been praised in European capitals, where some see this as a new tone of cooperation. But German papers on Monday offer a decidedly mixed analysis of Rice's carefully chosen words.

With Washington now apparently willing to offer Iran a carrot, the business daily Financial Times Deutschland says Europe is now getting the backing it needs to negotiate with the mullahs. A "good cop, bad cop" principle can only work if both sides have agreed to a common approach. That didn't happen before because of the "skepticism" and "distrust" between the partners on both sides of the Atlantic. Now, it writes, "the US is serving up a new chapter -- both in its relationship to Iran and Europe." Without US support, the editorial argues, the EU troika of Britain, Germany and France wouldn't stand a chance. Now, both sides are showing a willingness to compromise -- with the EU also agreeing to take the issue to the United Nations Security Council if Tehran refuses to cooperate. And even though President Mohammad Khatami said over the weekend Tehran couldn't be forced to stop producing enriched uranium, the new development brings hope. "It doesn't guarantee that, in the end, that the mullahs will be prevented from obtaining the bomb, but the chances are a little bit better -- and that's already a big achievement."

Germany's other big financial daily, Handelsblatt, says that, while there may be a new tenor coming out of Washington, it doesn't really represent a fundamental change in US strategy. It's certainly different than the other news we've been getting out of the US in recent weeks -- America has allegedly been sending spies to scope out strategic targets and flying in military surveillance drones as part of its effort to apply heavy pressure against the mullahs. That's why Rice's comments have brought her international applause. "But Washington's offer, which is completely in line with the Iran policies of Russia and the European Union, is nothing more than a declaration of intent." Beneath the new tones, Washington's position remains tough as nails: it has no diplomatic relations with Iran, and America won't do anything in the future that could possibly strengthen the regime. On the contrary: Washington is continuing to demand that the EU do more to raise the issue of Tehran's role in international terrorism and its human rights violations."

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung, never very friendly to the Bush administration, joins its chorus -- at least on the issue of terrorism and human rights violations. Basically, the paper writes, Iran has the right to produce enriched uranium, which is needed for the production of civilian nuclear energy. The International Atomic Energy Agency is even required to provide assistance in that endeavour. If it has to rely on other countries for it, then it loses its independence, which Tehran is unwilling to accept. Add to that the fact that China and Russia, which both have billions of dollars worth of contracts with Iran, are unlikely to support any anti-Tehran resolution at the Security Council and it's easy to see why Tehran doesn't take US or European threats of sanctions in the UN Security Council seriously. "In view of these circumstances, the Iranian leadership feel secure in their position -- and any climb-down is hardly to be expected," it opines. But the opposite is true for the Europeans. "Their insistence on unenforceable demands has put them in a situation where there is no way out," it adds. If they had instead pushed for sharper inspections, a rebuff of terrorism and the end of permanent violations to human rights, "the Europeans' chance of reaching an agreement would have been greater and the results for the people of Iran would have been far better," it concludes. ...