Special Dispatch | No. 2467 | July 31, 2009
Iran/U.S. & the Middle East
Kayhan: "The Americans Are Begging Iran for Dialogue"; U.S. Strategic Needs in Pakistan, Afghanistan Supersede Its Need to Prevent Iran from Going Nuclear
In a July 27, 2009 editorial, the conservative Iranian daily Kayhan stated that the U.S. has only one strategy for dealing with Iran, namely striving for dialogue with it – particularly, Kayhan said, after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recognized Iran as nuclear.
It should be noted that Tehran is depicting Clinton's July 22, 2009 statements in Thailand – that the U.S. would offer its allies in the region a "defense umbrella" against a nuclear Iran, and that the U.S. has a plan to prevent Iran from taking over the Middle East if it obtains nuclear weapons – as proof that the U.S. is coming to terms with a nuclear Iran.
In its editorial, Kayhan explained that the U.S. interests in the region, particularly in Pakistan and Afghanistan, are more important for the U.S. than the threat of Iran going nuclear. Thus, it said, the Americans are sending a desperate message to the world, begging Iran for dialogue. Tehran understands that Washington is not overly concerned about the prospect of a nuclear Iran; moreover, it knows that enhanced sanctions against Iran or even an attack on the country are impossible, and that threats of the same are only an American maneuver to bring Iran to the negotiating table.
The editorial also ridicules the Americans, "whose entire lives are foolishness," and praises them for finally realizing that decisions in Iran are made by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and that they should not pin their hopes on turnover in the Iranian government.
Following are the main points of the Kayhan editorial:(1)
The U.S. Has No Strategy, Just a Need for Dialogue with Iran
"The Americans are now saying that, in light of the events following the Iranian elections, they are reexamining their strategy towards Iran... From these statements, it appears that, prior to this, the Americans, as representatives of all Iran's enemies, had a clear and defined strategy regarding Iran, and that now they want to change it. But there is much evidence and many signs that they never had anything of the sort.
"For the past several months, the Americans have made efforts to arrive at a united outlook that includes all options against Iran. However, it gradually became clear that the only thing that they could aspire to regarding Iran was a statement that 'it is necessary to talk with Iran' – and that no comprehensive strategy could be formed as long as there is no such dialogue. In their talks with the Russians, the Chinese, the Europeans, the Arabs, and the Zionists, they agreed that sufficient time should be allowed for the idea of talks with Iran – but there is no consensus on the key question, that is, what to do if the talks fail.
"Hillary Clinton's statements a few days ago proved that this [question] has [now] also arisen among senior American officials. The Israelis have long since agreed to the idea of dialogue with Iran, and their intensive efforts in talks with senior U.S. officials in recent months have been aimed at getting the Americans to agree to use [what the Israelis call] paralyzing sanctions – and then, in the event that the talks fail, to put the military option on the table..."
"The U.S.['s] 'Strategic Need' for Iran Has Become So Critical That It Does Not Want to Lose the Option of Dialogue With It – Even at the Price of a Nuclear Iran"
"At the same time, Clinton's statements revealed a different reality, one that the Zionists have feared for some time and have talked much about, even if not explicitly. In her [abovementioned] speech last week, Clinton accepted the possibility of a nuclear Iran, and tried to show that the danger of a nuclear Iran has been overblown, and that the classic nuclear deterrent doctrine (mutual destruction) would be used against Iran just like it is used against any other nuclear power.
"She expressed the gist of this idea by saying that if Iran goes nuclear, then America will spread its nuclear umbrella across the entire region [i.e. the Middle East]. The Israelis very quickly jumped on this point, saying that it meant that the U.S. accepts the idea of a nuclear Iran, and that, [in order to assure its allies,] it promises them protection from possible dangers stemming from the phenomenon [of Iran's nuclearization].
"The words of the American secretary of state must be understood on a deeper level than merely as proof of America's acceptance of a nuclear Iran. Currently, the widespread perception in Tehran is that the U.S. is in a situation where it is sending a worldwide message that its 'strategic need' for Iran has become so critical that it does not want to lose the option of dialogue with it – even at the price of a nuclear Iran.
"The Americans' [comprehensive] strategic needs in the region have become so acute that, in comparison, the prospect of the emergence of a nuclear Iran appears less important."
The So-Called Punitive Measures Against Iran Are Merely a Manipulation Aimed at Dragging It to the Negotiating Table
"U.S. intelligence officials have reiterated and emphasized in recent months that the 'concrete dangers to [U.S.] national security' are in other places, such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, and so, instead of wasting energy in useless conflict with Iran, they prefer to obtain its cooperation in order to deal with their acute troubles.
"[Therefore,] the recent manipulations by the Zionists and by the U.S. Congress – regarding a military attack [on Iran] and regarding economic sanctions – have nothing to do with an American strategic decision to punish Iran if talks fail. The top U.S. officials are not [even] emphasizing the issue [of punishing Iran if talks fail], and their pleas [for dialogue] are confined to a demand [that the G-]8 give Iran a period of several months (until September) in order 'to enter into dialogue.' In other words, the Americans are now not even thinking of the post-talks phase, and their main concern is that Iran might not agree to dialogue.
"Even the so-called punitive measures are [merely] a manipulation to drag Iran to the negotiating table, and not to punish it after the talks fail – because they know [that punishment] is both impossible and ineffective."
The Americans "Have Not Yet Learned that Asking for Dialogue with Someone You Need Requires a Certain Politeness – And That Desperate Battle Cries, Shouting, and Screaming Are Not Considered a Sign of Strength"
"The situation today is that the Americans are begging Iran for dialogue – in very disrespectful language, like uncultured cowboys. Because of their arrogant nature, they have not yet learned that asking for dialogue with someone you need requires a certain politeness – and that desperate battle cries, shouting, and screaming are not considered a sign of strength. We return, therefore, to the starting point – that is, to the American reevaluation of its dialogue strategy following the Iranian elections.
"So far, we have said that the U.S. in effect has no strategy, and that all it does have is an aspiration for dialogue. After the [Iranian presidential] election, the Americans were tempted to think that 'something' had changed in Iran, and that they must choose a different course [of action]. But they soon realized that in matters connected [to Iran's strategy against the U.S.,] the Iranian government implements the decisions of [Iranian Supreme] Leader [Ali Khamenei]... and that therefore [the U.S.] shouldn't pin any hopes on turnover in the Iranian government. This little flash of insight by the Americans, whose entire lives are foolishness, is in itself valuable."
Endnotes:
(1) Kayhan, Iran, July 27, 2009.
| For assistance, please contact MEMRI at memri@memri.org. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request. |
Posts
