Welcome to the Big Tent

Iran constitutes one of the biggest challenges to the national security of the United States. At the same time as Clinton made a first step toward closer relations, Washington prepared the terrain for extra sanctions, says Bart Beirlant.

The opening move has been made. Hillary Clinton said Thursday, at a meeting of NATO ministers in Brussels, that later this month Iran would be welcome to attend a conference on Afghanistan. The new American Secretary of State described the gathering as a “Big Tent.” There will be a crowd waiting to get in: the Afghan government, NATO countries, and countries in the region will all be discussing a way forward in Afghanistan.

Besides a new recognition that things in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) are going in the wrong direction, the statement by Clinton (who received a star’s welcome in Brussels) also constituted a first concrete signal that the Obama administration is determined to carry out a new policy toward Iran.

For this, Afghanistan is chosen as a first “playing field,” which is not a bad plan. The U.S. and Iran have common interests in Afghanistan. The Shiite regime of the Mullahs in Tehran also shudders at a possible return of the Taliban in Kabul and is suffering the consequences of opium cultivation. UN reports have already demonstrated a clear link between the two: the Taliban use income from the drug trade to finance their activities.

So there are things to talk about. But let there be no doubt. Regarding Iran’s nuclear program, Barack Obama is as clear as his predecessor Bush: Iran may not develop nuclear weapons.

Because a military option (a preventative strike) only offers a delay of a few years at most and could even lead to further radicalization in Iran, Obama’s team is prepared to try a different option: to persuade Iran to suspend or terminate uranium enrichment.

It is and remains a big gamble – Iran has for decades put its brightest minds on its nuclear program and has spent boatloads on it. Iran realizes that the possession of a nuclear weapon would be the definitive evidence that it is a regional superpower. And as Mohammed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says: a nuclear weapon is the best warranty against a foreign attack. Moreover, the nuclear program is very popular with the Iranian population.

Richard Haass, director of the think-tank Council on Foreign Relations, contended this week during a three-day session on Iran in the U.S. Senate that the U.S. will have to be prepared to dig deep in their pockets to pull Iran over the line: lifting sanctions, economic incentives, normalizing relations, give guarantees that regime change will no longer be an issue, provide access to nuclear fuel to generate electricity for a rapidly growing population.

It will be a diplomatic balancing act if ever there was one for team Obama to accomplish this. Washington is already taking into account a stubborn refusal on the part of Iran, and the way is paved for extra sanctions if that would prove useful in order to put the brakes on the nuclear program.

It is in this context one should view the rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia. No more harsh words concerning Russia’s invasion of Georgia last year. “Due to the many important affairs that confront us, we think the U.S., the EU and Russia can be partners,” stated Clinton yesterday in the European Parliament.

Obama is even prepared to leave the Central European parts for the missile shield in the containers if Russia will take a tougher stance in the UN Security Council regarding Iran’s nuclear program. A move reminiscent of Russia’s chess master Gari Kasparov in his best days.

What we’ve seen in the last few days are only the first opening moves in a geo-strategic chess game between the big players. Only after the election of a new Iranian president in June can we expect the big tactical battle.