The Israeli press is reporting that around a fortnight ago Iran and Israel held direct talks in Cairo. They discussed the idea of a nuclear free Middle East.
Israel indicated that in principle, once comprehensive peace is established, it would be ready to discuss proposals for a nuclear free Middle East. Iran assured Israel that it does not seek to endanger Israel.
This seems to be the first time that the State of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran have held direct talks. The reports come hot on the heel of other reports regarding Iran's willingness to sign a draft agreement proposed by the IAEA, which affords international recognition of Iran's rights to enrich uranium under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and at the same time eases concerns about Iran's potential ability to produce a nuclear bomb.
This is a short diary covering this breaking story.
These two events could perhaps be the most important events to happen in the Middle East since the adoption of the Arab Peace Initiative by the Arab world in 2002 and since the invasion of Iraq by the previous administration.
It seems to me that both of these events are more or less an implementation of Iran's offer to the US in 2003, which is typically referred to as the Grand Bargain (copy of original document can be found here). In that document, the authors set out a proposal for a Grand Bargain between the US and Iran.
The Iranian proposal included the following:
- A roadmap for disarmament and access by Iran to western technology. This covered the three kinds of weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, biological, and chemical.
- Acceptance by Iran of the Arab Peace Initiative.
Members of Bush administration scuttled Iran's proposal. They were fixated at the time on regime change and nation building. Anyone can go to Baghdad; Real Men go to Tehran reflects the feelings at the time. Indeed, the proclivity to dismiss Iran's proposal is well described in John Bolton's interview with Frontline.
Did you see the fax that came in?
I've seen a variety of things; I'd rather not comment on exactly what they were. I was aware of the proposal; I spoke to Secretary Powell about it. I thought it was a bad idea and I told him so. …
I thought it was a fantasy. I don't think Iran is ever going to give up its nuclear weapons capability voluntarily. They're happy to talk about it. They've been talking about it now for close to five years with the Europeans, during which entire period of time they have expanded their scientific and technological mastery over virtually every element of the nuclear fuel cycle. I think they have used diplomacy as a cover very effectively, and I think they'd love to find ways to engage us in further discussions to buy more time. Time is the only thing they can't purchase with their oil revenue, but they can get time if they can dupe Europeans or Americans into negotiations. So I thought this was an unhelpful idea to say the least. …
Did you think it was legitimate and that it came from high levels within the Iranian regime?
I think all kinds of things come out of the Iranian regime that are intended to get gullible Americans to say that sweetness and light are about to break out, the consequence of which is to give Iran more time to do what it's busily been doing in a clandestine fashion for close to 20 years.
There was faint hope that the Baker-Hamilton Commission will recommend direct full and frank negotiations with Iran based on Iran's proposal.
It seems, however, that a change of regime was needed in the US before Iran's proposal would be taken seriously, and that Real Diplomats not Real Men go to Tehran.