U.S. Policy: Tradition against Innovations: Trend News Commentator (video)
Darina Ibrahimova, commentator of Trend Persian Desk
American administration's searches of answer to the question "what to make?" with respect to Iran become more difficult. It becomes already practically incomprehensibly. Consciously or unconsciously agiotage is created around this country. Judging by the last statements, it seems that also the USA itself appears in the confusion regarding of its further actions.
Political scientists and experts frequently told that the White House has its political line, which can not strongly change although Democrats or Republicans come to power. However, last events show that the White House does not have clearly devised line with respect to Iran. Already there is a great difference between the actions of George Bush in the recent days of presence at the post of President and the statements of Barack Obama, who prepares to come to the new post.
Nearly two months have left to the end of the presidential term of George Bush. On 20 January new Democrat-President Barack Obama will come to power. The political line, which will be trailed by the newly elected President with respect to Iran, still is not clear. Despite that during his pre-election campaign, Obama made statements that he was ready for talks with Iran without any preliminary conditions, later he expressed uncertainty whether it is worthwhile to go to talks with the Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Moreover, the negotiations process with Iran began to be considered by the United States as a possibility for adopting more rigid sanctions.
It remains the riddle how the USA wants to simultaneously enlarge the negotiations process and strengthen sanctions, answer to which will be obtained not soon, especially if to take into consideration that how often the USA and Iran attempted to begin negotiations over the recent several years, but these attempts did not bring intelligible results. Each state wants to obtain maximum from the negotiations process, here only the ideas of the sides on this maximum are different, if we do not say - opposite.
Much in the US policy will depend on who will become the Secretary of State of the United States. Until the recent period, the most probable candidate for this post was the Deputy Chairman of Senate Committee for Foreign Relations, Republican Richard Lugar. However, a week ago he said that he will refuse this post, if it will be proposed to him. Other pretenders for this post are the governor of New Mexico State Bill Richardson, Democratic senator John Kerry, former permanent representative of the USA to the United Nations Richard Holbrook, Republican senator Chak Khegel and Obama's adviser on the national security Susan Rice, RIA Novosti reported.
Will Obama be able to change the line of policy with respect to Iran and is it necessary for him? Without this, the USA has many problems, which must be solved. Yes, even the policy with respect to Iran would seem narrower to keep balance. In addition, under the policy of the USA, concrete theoretical base, especially the correction of Kyle-Liebermann was supplied with respect to Iran in 2007. This correction declares Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution as a terrorist organization, and also accuses Iran of active support to the Iraqi terrorists. Factually, after the adoption of this correction, the diplomatic co-operation between the USA and Iran becomes impossible.
The acting President of the U.S. George Bush issued a decree to prolong the state of emergency with Iran. Bush grounded his decision with the fact that 'the ties with Iran has not been normalized so far', the Vesti reported.
This decree was for the first time signed in 1980, when the U.S. cuts diplomatic ties with Iran, which took place after capture of hostages in the American embassy.
The meeting of 5+1 ( Great Britain, U.S., Russia, China, France and German)was held yesterday to discuss the influence upon Iran. Every meeting of 5+1 caused Iran's negative reaction and this time Iran will be discontent too.
How can we explain these events? The desire of the outgoing administration of the White House to show its intransigent stance against Iran until the last days in office? Or is it a prerequisite that the policy against Iran is unlikely to change in the future?
The answer could be found if there would not be the statement by Obama administration that the U.S. is interested in the cooperation with Iran over Afghanistan. On the one hand, Iran needs the U.S., on the other it is quite so strange ally at first glance to fight terror in Afghanistan. But Iran is not so unexpected assistant in solving of the problem.
Iran sees Talibs as its enemies and does not want their strengthening, as neither country wants to have 'radical neighbors'. Especially, because part of the population of Iran is Sunni. Iran is naturally may fear of the influence of radical Muslim movement on Sunnis.
Iran will have to make a complex choice, to start cooperation with the U.S to weaken Talibs, or retain inflexibility and refuse from it. The statement by Bush and the upcoming meeting of 5+1 may make the second version more acceptable.
Bush in his recent interview to CNN acknowledged that he took some thoughtless steps and made impulsive statements. Perhaps, the agreement is better to refer to 'thoughtless steps'.
How the policy pursued by Bush, will affect the future relations with Iran is a matter of time. For Obama to begin talks with Iran means not only to contain its promises, made in the beginning of the campaign. That means to stand against the policy pursued by the White House for almost three decades and carefully maintained in recent days by Bush administration. This will be the main decision on Iran, to change its position and to launch negotiations with Iran or not to continue to do so in the future.
The correspondent can be contacted at: [email protected]