Sunday March 26, 2000
By Dariush Sajjadi
Iran's supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei on Saturday replied to recent statements by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Even though the Iranian leader's tone was non-conciliatory, his reply could in essence be taken as recognizing and starting a dialog, though an indirect one, with top-ranking US officials.
The fact that Ayatollah Khamenei preferred to personally respond to Madeleine Albright's statements, rather than to have the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Council of Ministers, or High Council of National Security reply, could be taken as a starting point for dialogs between Iran and the US.
Even though such sermon-like dialogs have been kicked off with a harsh and unfriendly tone, the Ayatollah, by directly adopting a stance and addressing the issue, has willingly or not opened up to the US officials to reply to him.
Political circles in both countries and impartial political observers are of the opinion that in view of two decades of hostile and frosty US-Iran relations, the two countries could not be expected to start out with very cordial dialogs.
In case Ayatollah Khamenei deliberately initiated such form of dialog with the Americans, this can be a sign of his political tact and astuteness, since while replying to the recent US gesture, he has on the one hand provided an opportunity for the verbal exchanges to go on and on the other hand appeased the domestic conservative and traditional circles that are dead-set against resumption of ties with the US.
If the Iranian leader's sole aim was to keep up the hostile stance against the US, he should this time doubt the counseling his advisors offered prior to his recent speech, since even though his words were as hostile toward the US as in the past, they were uttered in response to conciliatory remarks from a high-ranking American official and as such could have a different impact and resonance.
In any event, if the American statesmen have an eye for such opportunities and if they are sincere in their conciliatory policies toward Iran, they can reap utmost benefit from the occasion to respond to the Iranian Leader's remarks and promote and cement the "long-distance speech diplomacy" through a calculated stance.
Though these bilateral remarks could be initially somewhat hostile in tone and nature, they could in essence create a fit platform for both sides to lay their hearts bare by mentioning their grievances, stances, and expectations.
It would have surely been more decorous for the two countries to have their envoys sit officially at the negotiation table to vent their views and criticism but even in that case the early nature of the talks would not have been much different from what they are now.
After two decades of hostility, Iran and the US would definitely need to give full vent, early in their talks, to their grievances of all those years of cold relations. The two sides should, therefore, be given the chance to initiate dialogs even if the talks start at first with a hostile tone and through expression of grievances on both sides.
Such mode of dialog would psychologically prepare the US and Iran to do away with the existing bad feelings to eagerly enter the second phase of the talks -- namely the stage built on constructive dialogs.
The prerequisite to constructive dialog between Iran and the US is surely a calculated and step-by-step approach by both sides in the present phase of talks.
هیچ نظری موجود نیست:
ارسال یک نظر