US Accepts Talks With Iran.

The Bush administration on May 31 bowed to pressure and said it was ready to join EU allies in talks with Iran - on condition that Tehran first suspended its nuclear fuel programme. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice revealed the policy change before leaving for Vienna for talks on June 1 with the foreign ministers of Russia and China - which had resisted proposed sanctions against Iran - as well as France, Germany and the UK. She said: "It's time to know whether Iran is serious about negotiation or not".

At the Vienna talks, the six powers agreed on a package of "far reaching proposals" to encourage Iran to suspend uranium enrichment but warned of "further steps" if Tehran refused to co-operate. After the talks, also attended by the EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, the UK's Foreign Secretary Margaret Becket said European governments would resume negotiations with Tehran and stop action at the UNSC if it suspends all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. She added, however, that if Iran refuses to engage, steps would be taken at the UNSC. She said: "We urge Iran to take the positive path and to consider seriously our substantive proposals which would bring significant benefits".

European officials refused to divulge the details of the incentives agreed and it was unclear whether Russia and China had signed up to specific penalties if Iran spurns the offer of engagement. But the rare show of international unity will substantially raise the diplomatic pressure on the Iran.

The Financial Times on June 2 quoted a senior European diplomat as saying before the Vienna meeting that the UK, France and Germany - the three European governments that have led policy on Iran - were to hold talks with Iranian officials to present and explain the proposals.

The package agreed is believed to include a guarantee of fuel supply to Iranian nuclear reactors, and construction of a light water reactor. Crucially, the proposals are said to call on Tehran to cease all uranium enrichment but do not rule out a potential reconsideration of this at a future date, if and when Iran reassures the international community of the peaceful intentions of its nuclear programme.

Diplomats are hoping the US offer, combined with the package of incentives, will persuade senior members of the Iranian theocracy to opt for a less confrontational approach and agree at least to a temporary freeze of enrichment, which could allow negotiations to begin.

Iran, however, has already warned it would reject proposals that did not allow it to retain a small-scale enrichment capability, the process which produces nuclear fuel for reactors or atomic weapons. The first official reactions to the US policy shift from Tehran on June 1 were not encouraging but nor did they represent an outright rejection of the American overture.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki played down the significance of the Bush administration's policy reversal and shrugged off US demands for a halt in all uranium enrichment and reprocessing as a pre-condition for dialogue. But he also said Tehran was ready to hold talks "over mutual concerns".

Iranian commentators, however, were deeply sceptical of the US readiness to join Europeans in multilateral talks with Iran, insisting the offer was not serious because it included a conditionality unacceptable to Tehran. Hossein Shariatmadari, influential fundamentalist commentator and managing director of the Keyhan newspaper, condemned the US offer as a "trick" and argued that giving in to US demands would amount to "blackmail". But Iran's friends and foes around the world urged the theocracy to take its time and carefully consider its response. The foreign ministry in Russia described the American policy shift as "a real chance" to achieve a settlement over Iran, saying: "We call on Iran to constructively respond to it [the chance]".

The New York Times on June 1 quoted US officials as saying the new Bush move was effectively a gamble which, if it did not work in getting Iran to stop enrichment, would at least demonstrate American willingness to take every reasonable step to make the negotiations a success and pave the way for a confrontation with Iran. The American hope was also that, by making this gesture, the US could get Russia and China to join with a European and American-led effort to push through a UNSC resolution demanding that Iran suspend enrichment or face economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation.

The US, UK and France favour a UNSC resolution under Chapter 7. Invoking Chapter 7 implies that sanctions are likely if Iran refuses. Russia and China are against invoking Chapter 7. To get them to go along with a Chapter 7 call, the US agreed to explicit assurances that sanctions would not be adopted without another UNSC vote and that uses of military force was not to be part of this process. Russia, fearing a replay of the months leading up to the Iraq war in 2003, has insisted on such language because it charges that the US used a resolution on Iraq in that period as a pretext for its going to war to oust Saddam's dictatorship.

Rice said the US still objected to many aspects of Iran's behaviour. She cited Iran's support for violent insurgents in Iraq and its support of other acts of violence against Israeli, US and other civilians in the Middle East. The administration has not entirely frozen Iran out, even after Bush labelled Iran along with Iraq and North Korea as part of an "axis of evil".

Iranian officials on June 1 uniformly rebuffed Washington's offer of direct talks. The New York Times on June 2 quoted Saeed Leylaz, "a political analyst from Tehran who has close relations with people in the government", as saying: "The fact that Ms Rice has announced the United States' willingness to hold talks with Iran is more important than the conditions she set". In many ways, Tehran's reactions to Washington's proposal to Iran mirrored the reaction to the letter which Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad sent to President Bush. While the letter, which among other things declared liberal democracy a failure, was summarily dismissed, even mocked, its very existence was perceived by many in Washington and Tehran as an effort to reach out and begin a dialogue.

The NYT quoted Javad Vaeidi, a member of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and deputy in charge of international security, as agreeing that the US overture was, in itself, a positive step similar to Ahmadi-Nejad's letter. But, he flatly rejected not just the content but, as important, the tone of the proposal. As Vaeidi defined the conflict, it was as much about earning respect for Iran as about developing nuclear power. It would be "humiliating", he said, to give up enrichment.