Iran-America Hotline: Progressive Policy or New Containment Measure?
Published in Al Quds
(Palestine) on 24 September 2011
by (link to original)
Muhammad Saleh Sidqian wrote in the London newspaper Al-Hayat that the U.S. request to set up a “hotline” with Iran raised many questions regarding its feasibility. This comes at a time when Tehran is showing no signs of softening its position toward the American policy except through efforts by Moscow — whether on the level of its proposal to resolve the Iran nuclear issue through the “step-by-step” plan, or in the context of information that Russian officers want to set up a meeting between Iranian and American officers on the occasion of the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
This came after chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen expressed his sorrow that there is no direct contact with Iran, saying this “has planted many seeds for miscalculation. When you miscalculate, you can escalate and misunderstand.”
Mullen's statement came after the Wall Street Journal mentioned that the U.S. Army would like to set up a “hotline” with Tehran to deal with potential crises. Mullen pointed out that the U.S. has not had a direct line of contact with Iran since the revolution in 1979. He made reference to the “red telephone” set up by Washington and Moscow during the Cold War and the military communications with Beijing despite disagreements between the two countries. He thinks that “There are things we also – that we do agree on, but we have a channel that we can discuss things with each other. … Some of [these links] are diplomatic, some of them are political, some of them are mil-to-mil, some of them are economic.”
Although Iran has kept silent regarding this request, amid a hard position taken by the Islamic republic's spiritual leader concerning starting talks with the U.S. because he believes the U.S. is trying to impose its wishes on Iran, sources in Tehran are talking about officials in the Ahmadinejad government working on completing similar measures. They add that “Russia was no stranger to the desire of these people to put forth the Moscow initiative to start talks between the U.S. and Iran.”
Tehran does not deem its dealings with the Americans fruitful, referring to a meeting held between the two parties in Baghdad in 2006, in collaboration with the Iraqi government, as an attempt at cooperation and coordination regarding the security conditions in Iraq. Some in Iran believe that the hotline can be “a positive political step,” but cannot be considered effective to start talks with Washington or be capable of solving the problems between the two countries, because “the bilateral relations are complex and cannot be solved through a line like that.”
According to some sources, high-ranking Iranian officers are unlikely to meet their American counterparts at present because of a lack of preparations for similar meetings, on the basis that “what took place between the U.S. and the Soviet Union or China cannot be compared to Iran.”
Tehran and Washington have radically different viewpoints regarding fundamental issues including the Iranian nuclear dossier, peace in the Middle East, human rights and the American view of the region, in addition to the economic and political pressures the U.S. is putting on Iran.
However, those concerned with Iran-U.S. relations are emphasizing the importance of this “positive” step, although they agree with the importance of conveying this desire to Iranian officials formally, so that it takes a political dimension before it is answered. But at the same time they are wondering what the purpose of this talk is: Is it a development in the U.S. policy toward Iran, or a new policy to contain the Iranian “rebellion”?
This came after chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen expressed his sorrow that there is no direct contact with Iran, saying this “has planted many seeds for miscalculation. When you miscalculate, you can escalate and misunderstand.”
Mullen's statement came after the Wall Street Journal mentioned that the U.S. Army would like to set up a “hotline” with Tehran to deal with potential crises. Mullen pointed out that the U.S. has not had a direct line of contact with Iran since the revolution in 1979. He made reference to the “red telephone” set up by Washington and Moscow during the Cold War and the military communications with Beijing despite disagreements between the two countries. He thinks that “There are things we also – that we do agree on, but we have a channel that we can discuss things with each other. … Some of [these links] are diplomatic, some of them are political, some of them are mil-to-mil, some of them are economic.”
Although Iran has kept silent regarding this request, amid a hard position taken by the Islamic republic's spiritual leader concerning starting talks with the U.S. because he believes the U.S. is trying to impose its wishes on Iran, sources in Tehran are talking about officials in the Ahmadinejad government working on completing similar measures. They add that “Russia was no stranger to the desire of these people to put forth the Moscow initiative to start talks between the U.S. and Iran.”
Tehran does not deem its dealings with the Americans fruitful, referring to a meeting held between the two parties in Baghdad in 2006, in collaboration with the Iraqi government, as an attempt at cooperation and coordination regarding the security conditions in Iraq. Some in Iran believe that the hotline can be “a positive political step,” but cannot be considered effective to start talks with Washington or be capable of solving the problems between the two countries, because “the bilateral relations are complex and cannot be solved through a line like that.”
According to some sources, high-ranking Iranian officers are unlikely to meet their American counterparts at present because of a lack of preparations for similar meetings, on the basis that “what took place between the U.S. and the Soviet Union or China cannot be compared to Iran.”
Tehran and Washington have radically different viewpoints regarding fundamental issues including the Iranian nuclear dossier, peace in the Middle East, human rights and the American view of the region, in addition to the economic and political pressures the U.S. is putting on Iran.
However, those concerned with Iran-U.S. relations are emphasizing the importance of this “positive” step, although they agree with the importance of conveying this desire to Iranian officials formally, so that it takes a political dimension before it is answered. But at the same time they are wondering what the purpose of this talk is: Is it a development in the U.S. policy toward Iran, or a new policy to contain the Iranian “rebellion”?