DAR AL HARB / ISLAM - U.S.A. / IRAN: WHAT SHOULD THE U.S. DEMAND?!? WHAT SHOULD THE U.S. CONCEDE?!?

JOHN COOLEY: At the table with Iran, what could the U.S. concede?

...

Assuming that meaningful U.S.-Iranian talks begin, what should minimum U.S. demands be? First and foremost, suspension and eventual halt to anything that looks like enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade levels, or diversion of plutonium from power plants to the same purpose.

Sir Eldon Griffiths, a British diplomat and author who has devoted his career to studying Iran, suggests ways to achieve this.

In a new book, "Turbulent Iran," Griffiths articulates his peace plan in stages. First, U.S., British, Iraqi and Iranian military commanders would meet to end infiltration from Iran into Iraq of arms, cash and agents of incitement; agree on a liaison between Iran and the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq as the U.S. and British hand over control to Iraqis, and on joint policing of Iran's land and water borders.

Second, in Kabul, Afghanistan, Iranian, Afghan, U.S., British and NATO representatives should agree to cooperate in defeating the Taliban, a long-time foe of Tehran. Their other agendas: pacifying western Afghanistan; returning home about 300,000 Afghans who fled to Iran, and cracking down on narcotrafficking, an Iranian priority.

Bilateral U.S.-Iranian meetings should aim to settle old compensation claims: U.S. claims since 1979 for damage and restitution for the U.S. Embassy and other property and citizens in Iran; Iranian claims for additional compensation for the U.S. Navy's mistake in shooting down an Iranian airliner in 1988; and the unfreezing of Iranian assets in U.S. banks.

Such moves could greatly facilitate a crucial nuclear solution. One would be a multinational consortium under World Bank auspices to supervise and participate in Iran's nuclear electric power projects.

Iran would own its nuclear fuel, but would be obliged to hold a "dual key" with expert nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. They would supervise and approve use of fuel to avoid diversion to weapons use. This has been a proposal of Bruno Pellaud, IAEA's former deputy director for safeguards. He says this technique of strict oversight by "interested peers and partners" could exclude an Iranian weapons program.

Despite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's inflammatory rhetoric, Iranians have shown in the past that they are usually amenable to solutions they find to be in their best strategic interest. Now is the time for the U.S. and allies to rise to this opportunity for future Middle Eastern peace and face the challenge of difficult, but potentially fruitful peace diplomacy.


Pertinent Links:

1) JOHN COOLEY: At the table with Iran, what could the U.S. concede?