THE first official face-to-face diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran in more than a quarter-century ended Monday. Less than a day later, Tehran announced formal espionage charges against three Americans there.
So much for those who pressured the Bush administration into sitting down with the Ahmadinejad government by insisting that Tehran can be persuaded to help in stabilizing war-torn Iraq.
Clearly, the talks came off as a political coup for the Iranian government. With the discussion limited to the situation in Iraq, the matter of Tehran’s rapidly escalating nuclear-weapons program – and the threat it holds for regional security – didn’t even get raised.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker bent over backward to describe the talks with his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, as “positive,” stressing Tehran’s ostensible support for “a secure, stable, democratic, federal Iraq, in control of its own security.”
Problem is, as Crocker also noted, Iran’s continuing actions are completely at odds with its words. Indeed, Tehran is trying to destabilize the Iraqi government through its support of terrorist militias.
With Iran unwilling even to acknowledge its meddling in Iraq, it’s hard to see just what direct talks accomplished.
Especially given Iran’s followup: the announcement of formal spy charges against the three Iranian-Americans.
One, Haleh Esfandieri, a senior research fellow at the New School University here, has been in custody for more than two weeks – but the regime hadn’t even acknowledged holding her until yesterday.
Also formally charged were Kian Tajbakhsh, an urban-planning consultant, and Parnaz Azima, a journalist connected with the U.S.-funded Radio Farda. All stand accused of “endangering national security” through “propaganda” and “espionage.”
Trumped-up charges, in other words. And anything can happen in a customary closed-door Iranian trial.
At best, Tehran must hope to use the three as diplomatic bargaining chips. (Shades of the 1979-80 hostage crisis?)
At worst, they can be a distraction. If future talks with Iran wind up concentrating on the fate of the three accused, Iraq and WMDs will fade even further into the abyss.
Proponents of such negotiations are fond of quoting Winston Churchill’s famous observation that “jaw-jaw is better than war-war.” And that’s true – if both sides are genuinely committed to avoiding further confrontation. But Iran is not.
Talking with Tehran, it seems clear, is a waste of time.