U.S. Reverses Stand on Talks With Iranians

The Bush administration reversed course Wednesday and announced a willingness to take part in direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program, but only if Tehran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.

Iran called the offer “a propaganda move,” and many U.S. and allied officials acknowledged that it may reject the central U.S. precondition for talks. But if Tehran spurns the offer, American officials hope that would draw leading world powers together in agreeing to impose painful economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

“Iran now faces a clear choice,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in Washington. “This is the last excuse.”

The United States has long resisted pressure to directly negotiate with Iran. Rice said the U.S. initiative would “give new energy” to a European-led effort to develop a package of incentives and possible penalties to induce Iran to halt disputed nuclear activities. The American proposal would also require Iran to allow the resumption of surprise visits to its nuclear facilities by U.N. nuclear inspectors.

It remained unclear going into a meeting of foreign ministers today in Vienna whether Russia and China would agree to the proposal, which offers both sticks and carrots.

Though the countries involved are unlikely to take the drastic step of trying to block Tehran’s oil exports, they could still do enough damage to Iran’s economy to force a rethinking of the nuclear program by the fundamentalist leadership, U.S. and allied diplomats say. Tehran is under strong pressure to provide more jobs and a better standard of living for its population.

Rice said that although ongoing talks in Vienna among the world powers had made “substantial progress ... some outstanding issues remain.”

America’s allies and many U.S. foreign policy experts have been urging President Bush and his administration to take part in talks, arguing that unless Washington showed a willingness to engage, it could not convince other countries that the time had come to impose penalties on Iran.

The shift in the U.S. position comes less than a month after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a surprise letter to Bush, apparently the first direct communication between the two nations’ leaders since Iranian militants took Americans hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran more than a quarter of a century ago. The letter included a long series of grievances and demands but was followed by calls from foreign policy experts and even some Republicans on Capitol Hill for direct talks.

The administration has resisted such talks on the grounds they would lend a legitimacy to the Tehran regime, which the United States has condemned for actions dating to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. In reversing that stance, U.S. officials equated their participation in multinational talks on Iran with what the administration has done in the case of North Korea’s nuclear program.

Iranian officials contend that their uranium enrichment program is intended only for legal civilian nuclear power facilities that would generate electricity. But the United States and Europeans fear Tehran’s goal is to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Britain, France and Germany negotiated with Iran for two years over the disputed program, but talks broke off when Tehran resumed enrichment.

Rice said the proposed talks with Iran would be focused tightly on the nuclear issue, and would not be aimed at reaching a “grand bargain” to resolve all differences between the two countries. Nevertheless, some U.S. officials and foreign diplomats said the new approach had been advanced by Rice to Bush in the face of resistance from more hawkish members of the administration.

Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, said that Bush on Tuesday had called the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to discuss the proposal and that “they all signed off.”

He said the United States and its allies were “finalizing both a series of inducements and punishments.”

“Everybody is very close,” Snow said, pointing to “a climate for action.”

Bush personally addressed the policy shift in comments at the White House.

“Our message to the Iranians is that, one, you won’t have a weapon, and two, that you must verifiably suspend any programs, at which point we will come to the negotiating table to work on a way forward.”

Rice said that if Iran did not budge, the United States would move to “increase the pressure,” either through the United Nations Security Council, “or, if necessary, with like-minded states outside of the Security Council.”

Ahmadinejad has spoken scornfully of the incentive package being developed in Vienna. But Iranian officials have also intermittently signaled an interest in drawing the United States into negotiations, partly in hopes that Tehran could exact a U.S. commitment to drop efforts to undermine the regime.

The White House has heard calls to negotiate from a wide variety of sources, including European officials. But some administration members, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have resisted, fearing that talks could only give the Iranian leadership more stature and more time to advance a weapons program.

The United States’ overture to Iran offers an opening for negotiations but comes with so many strings attached that little may happen in the short term, diplomats and experts say.

Under the agreement, the U.S. would enter into direct talks only if the Iranians first agreed to suspend entirely their uranium enrichment program, which Tehran restarted in early April.

The U.S. proposal also says that if Iran fails to comply with the demand to suspend enrichment, the permanent Security Council members will move ahead with a resolution that can lead to sanctions. The incentive package would be offered simultaneously with the tabling of the resolution.

These demands would be hard to swallow for Iran and Russia. Iran has said it will not reenter negotiations if there are conditions attached, such as a mandatory suspension. And the Russians have said they oppose any Security Council measure that can lead to sanctions.

Despite the two countries’ public statements, the U.S. offer is considered likely to push all parties to reassess their positions. And diplomats and experts around the world applauded the move as the only hope for a negotiated settlement that could result in the Iranians halting their enrichment efforts.

“They’ve crossed the threshold, they’ve said they will talk directly to the Iranians.... There are conditions that make it unlikely that it will happen quickly, but it’s part of a process,” said a senior envoy in Vienna, speaking on condition of anonymity in keeping with diplomatic protocol.

“Two weeks ago, it was way down the road that they might consider talking. Now, it’s if certain conditions are met. We’ll allow diplomacy to take its course, and if the U.S. is engaged, they are engaged, it will be qualitatively different.”

International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohamed ElBaradei, who has quietly encouraged face-to-face talks, welcomed the move, saying in a statement that he “strongly encourages Iran to create the conditions necessary for the resumption of these talks, with U.S. participation, with a view to achieving a comprehensive settlement that is acceptable to both the international community and Iran.”

European diplomats and experts reacted enthusiastically to the American move, even if it may not lead to a quick resolution.

“The Iranians have been demanding direct discussions with the U.S. so it would give much more credibility to the Europeans if they have the Americans sitting at the same table,” said a European diplomat.

Gary Samore, who served as a top nonproliferation advisor to President Clinton, said any talks would probably be preceded by a U.S. initiative to work out the details of the negotiations. For instance, the Iranians would probably offer to suspend a portion of their enrichment effort, tempting other nations to accept those terms as a way to at least slow the Iranian effort, he said.

Patrick Clawson, a longtime Iran watcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he was not surprised that the administration would make this offer to join direct talks once it had worked out an agreement with other countries on penalties.

“The U.S. position for some time has been if we can agree on the stick, we’ll come with the carrot,” he said. “That’s what this is.”

Clawson and Samore both said they doubted the Iranians would accept the offer. But their refusal, Clawson said, could make it easier for the United States to enlist like-minded countries to impose sanctions.

*

Richter reported from Washington and Rubin from Vienna. Times staff writers Kim Murphy in Moscow and James Gerstenzang in Washington contributed to this report.