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."
[1] Kayhan, Iran, July 27, 2009.
This document is also available in HTML at http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD246709
