Iran has been thrown into turmoil by its disputed presidential election on 12 June 2009, which the defeated opposition candidates claim was rigged. As demonstrators have taken to the streets of the capital, Tehran, and other Iranian cities, US President Barack Obama has reacted cautiously. He has expressed his concern about ’violence directed at peaceful protesters’, but stressed that his country must not be seen to be ’meddling’ in Iran’s internal politics.
However, the US administration has said that it is monitoring the Iranian situation carefully – which is particularly unsurprising in light of its plans to embark on a new policy of engagement with Tehran. This policy, promised by Obama in his election campaign, is likely to continue regardless of political developments in Iran.
On 14 June, Vice President Joseph Biden said that, although there was doubt about the electoral result, ‘the decision has been made to talk’ to Tehran. A day later, Obama added that: ‘We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we’ll see where it takes us.’ In short, Washington has not ruled out the possibility of additional sanctions in future. Again as part of its previously flagged approach, the Obama administration is preparing for the possibility of new sanctions targeting Iran’s development and import of refined petroleum, especially if the policy of engagement falters or proves inconclusive by the end of 2009.
Engagement and incentives
After meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on 18 May, Obama said the US was engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade it that it is not in its interest to pursue a nuclear weapon. He added: ‘We are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious.’
Obama said he was hopeful that after the Iranian presidential elections ‘there is going to be a serious process of engagement – first through the P5+1 process that’s already in place, potentially through additional direct talks between the United States and Iran’. In response to a question about the length of the US programme of engagement, he said: ‘We should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction.’
The ‘right direction’ is generally understood to mean Iranian acceptance of a previous offer by the P5+1 (the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany) to freeze further sanctions on Iran in return for Iran’s freezing enrichment of uranium at current levels. The Obama administration has dropped a previous US condition that Iran should suspend enrichment before beginning direct talks. The United States is also willing to engage Iran directly in a more expansive dialogue, including on matters of regional security.
This new US approach may partly reflect the P5+1 ‘incentives package’ offered to Iran in June 2006 and June 2008. Among other issues, that package:
-
proposed discussions with Iran about regional security;
-
offered normalisation of political, economic, trade and energy relations with the international community; and
-
offered assistance with Iran’s civil nuclear programme.
In return, Iran would be expected to suspend enrichment and reprocessing and to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as called for by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 and subsequent resolutions.
On 14 April, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said the incentives package remained on the table. ‘We encourage Iran to take up that incentives package.’ Obama said on 4 June in Cairo that Iran ‘should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’.
1 | 2 | 3
Next>
