The West May Lose with the New Resolution
When President Barack Obama took the seat of power in the White House, many believed it would create flexibility in the relations between Iran and America and that there would finally be an American dialogue with the Islamic republic.
Due to efforts on the part of Obama’s administration to negotiate with Tehran, some limited achievements were initially made, such as a meeting between American Diplomat William Burns and Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Jalili, which was intended to be a discussion on the nuclear issue.
However, Israeli lobbyist pressure in Washington and acute internal issues in post-election Iran became important obstacles on the road to face-to-face talks.
Before the Iranian presidential elections, President Obama wrote two letters addressed to the leader of the Islamic republic, having stressed he would be willing to negotiate with anyone who was elected president of Iran.
Despite this, optimism for direct talks turned immediately into a new round of tension and disputed words.
However, Ahmadinejad’s government has been interested in and believes there should be open interaction between the two governments. He demonstrated that sentiment in the last meeting he attended at the United Nations when he asked Obama to give serious thought to negotiations of Iran’s proposal.
Tehran’s nuclear declaration and Iran’s cooperation with Turkey and Brazil in the transferring of nuclear fuel again showed that the Islamic republic was willing to pursue negotiations with the West, especially the U.S.
Despite the agreement to the West’s key demand to remove a large part of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities, Washington has not welcomed the agreement and called it a tactical step by Tehran to buy more time.
America and the European Union urge action on a continuous new round of practical sanctions against Iran, and it is predicted that the new resolution will pass the [U.N.] Security Council .
If sanctions are approved, it will mean Tehran will be discredited. It will be a serious blow to the opportunity of finding a peaceful solution to Iran’s nuclear case.
If America and the European Union do not accept the agreement or do not take this as a new chance for dialogue with the Islamic republic, it can be said that there will be a loss of a great opportunity in the relations between Iran and the West. As a result, we will enter into an uncertain period of tension.
The cold reaction of the White House and the humiliation caused while Brazil and Turkey tried to create a middle ground between Tehran and the West causes us to question the legitimacy of Obama’s remarks that he would follow a policy of dialogue with Iran.
Tehran’s nuclear agreement has a strong domestic consensus of support, another important point that the White House has been incapable of understanding.
Unlike past initiatives in Iran for talking with America, which failed due to internal disagreements in the government, Tehran now agrees to an open dialogue. Powerful factions and the individual leadership of Iran are in support of talks, which make discussions with America a serious possibility, and negotiations with the Islamic republic a prospect.
Some extremist groups in Iran that usually attack such agreements have taken a policy of silence this time.
In addition, some opposition groups and the opposition leadership in Iran are also in agreement for the benefit of national interests.
Iran can make a case accusing Obama’s government of disregarding democratic rights and moral values. Tehran’s nuclear agreement met and accepted Washington’s demands. Those from the U.S. and others from the West who do not accept the nuclear agreement are an important part of the opponents of the Islamic republic's government.
On this basis, Washington’s quick attack of Tehran following its agreement and approval of the resolution has been a surprising action to the Security Council.
While the American president insists on a policy of dialogue with Iran, all are waiting for the green light from Iran to the major and most important step that the West feels is necessary, to remove a large part of uranium enrichment activities from Iran’s territory. This will be done while Iran’s nuclear statement is under the most severe attacks from Obama and the foreign minister to Iran (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton).
With the U.N. resolution and implementation of a new round of sanctions against the Islamic republic, Americans are losing a golden opportunity that also may have led to a more complex Washington-Tehran relationship, perhaps influencing the future of Iran’s nuclear program.
Due to efforts on the part of Obama’s administration to negotiate with Tehran, some limited achievements were initially made, such as a meeting between American Diplomat William Burns and Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Jalili, which was intended to be a discussion on the nuclear issue.
However, Israeli lobbyist pressure in Washington and acute internal issues in post-election Iran became important obstacles on the road to face-to-face talks.
Before the Iranian presidential elections, President Obama wrote two letters addressed to the leader of the Islamic republic, having stressed he would be willing to negotiate with anyone who was elected president of Iran.
Despite this, optimism for direct talks turned immediately into a new round of tension and disputed words.
However, Ahmadinejad’s government has been interested in and believes there should be open interaction between the two governments. He demonstrated that sentiment in the last meeting he attended at the United Nations when he asked Obama to give serious thought to negotiations of Iran’s proposal.
Tehran’s nuclear declaration and Iran’s cooperation with Turkey and Brazil in the transferring of nuclear fuel again showed that the Islamic republic was willing to pursue negotiations with the West, especially the U.S.
Despite the agreement to the West’s key demand to remove a large part of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities, Washington has not welcomed the agreement and called it a tactical step by Tehran to buy more time.
America and the European Union urge action on a continuous new round of practical sanctions against Iran, and it is predicted that the new resolution will pass the [U.N.] Security Council .
If sanctions are approved, it will mean Tehran will be discredited. It will be a serious blow to the opportunity of finding a peaceful solution to Iran’s nuclear case.
If America and the European Union do not accept the agreement or do not take this as a new chance for dialogue with the Islamic republic, it can be said that there will be a loss of a great opportunity in the relations between Iran and the West. As a result, we will enter into an uncertain period of tension.
The cold reaction of the White House and the humiliation caused while Brazil and Turkey tried to create a middle ground between Tehran and the West causes us to question the legitimacy of Obama’s remarks that he would follow a policy of dialogue with Iran.
Tehran’s nuclear agreement has a strong domestic consensus of support, another important point that the White House has been incapable of understanding.
Unlike past initiatives in Iran for talking with America, which failed due to internal disagreements in the government, Tehran now agrees to an open dialogue. Powerful factions and the individual leadership of Iran are in support of talks, which make discussions with America a serious possibility, and negotiations with the Islamic republic a prospect.
Some extremist groups in Iran that usually attack such agreements have taken a policy of silence this time.
In addition, some opposition groups and the opposition leadership in Iran are also in agreement for the benefit of national interests.
Iran can make a case accusing Obama’s government of disregarding democratic rights and moral values. Tehran’s nuclear agreement met and accepted Washington’s demands. Those from the U.S. and others from the West who do not accept the nuclear agreement are an important part of the opponents of the Islamic republic's government.
On this basis, Washington’s quick attack of Tehran following its agreement and approval of the resolution has been a surprising action to the Security Council.
While the American president insists on a policy of dialogue with Iran, all are waiting for the green light from Iran to the major and most important step that the West feels is necessary, to remove a large part of uranium enrichment activities from Iran’s territory. This will be done while Iran’s nuclear statement is under the most severe attacks from Obama and the foreign minister to Iran (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton).
With the U.N. resolution and implementation of a new round of sanctions against the Islamic republic, Americans are losing a golden opportunity that also may have led to a more complex Washington-Tehran relationship, perhaps influencing the future of Iran’s nuclear program.