US takes a new tack (IRAN)

Another important consideration in the US calculus will be Tehran's own overtures. True, Tehran has not been slow in matching Washington's rhetoric. Be it in belligerence or in sound bites, Tehran gave back to Washington every bit what it received. Equally so, Tehran remained conscious of its innate strength - be it the legitimacy of state power in Iran, the national consolidation over the nuclear issue, the non-viability of a US attack on its nuclear facilities, US imperial overreach in the region and its consequent vulnerability to Iranian retaliation. But that has not kept Tehran from estimating its national interests or from reaching out to signal that it is open to a reasonable deal - if only the Americans would listen.

An authoritative presentation of what motivates Iranian thinking becomes available from a speech delivered by one of Iran's influential diplomats, its ambassador to the United Kingdom, Syed Mohammad Hossein Adeli, at the prestigious Chatham House on Friday - just ahead of Rice's arrival in London. In his speech titled "Pragmatism in Iran's Foreign Policy", Adeli spelled out without any sophistry the ABCs of what Iran is seeking at this juncture. He admitted that Iran understands perfectly well the "realities of the world order" (warts and all) and does not harbor notions of strategic defiance. Iran just as always gives primacy to its "self-interests". Any "fanatic theocratic picture" of Iran by ill-informed quarters would be overlooking the moorings of Iranian conduct. Pragmatism, characterized by caution and prudence - that is what Iranian policies are about, he said.

The ambassador defined the elements of Iran's national interests: its geopolitical location, the national (Persian) identity of the Iranian people (pride, sense of independence and an "enthusiasm for modernity and advancement") and economic development that translated into keenness to integrate with the world economy.

Adeli singled out four "empirical evidences" of Iranian pragmatism: (a) its readiness to offer "objective guarantees" for its nuclear program in return for "firm guarantees" for the security of the country, as well as cooperation in different fields; (b) Iran's commitment to the stability of Afghanistan and Iraq where "thanks to American adventurism, we have gotten rid of both the Taliban and Saddam " - where Iran offers "effective cooperation" in establishing stability and a democratic process despite the "affinities of Shi'ism"; (c) openness to a Persian Gulf security system where Iran plays a "positive role" in the unhindered transportation of oil to the world market; and (d) Iran's readiness to regard Europe as a "post-modern state".

Asia Times

It doesn't want to fight the US. It wants to have a say in running the show, with the US and Europe.

Reminds me of Chamberlain.

And I found the description of Persian thinking different enough to post.

In fact I look for them.

This post was informative and disturbing. Perhaps I only perceive the weakness of the stated policies. When I read about India's foreign policy I feel the same way. Our current regime isn't negotiating. Iran is a target. Therefore, there isn't an Iranian role to play. Reasonable men engage in dialogue while our government plans conquest.

I tend to be a bit gullible at first, and you straighten me up when I
fall into that. Not that there are not advantages to being open minded,
up to a point.

I didn't find this one convincing, but knowing that governments and
ruling elites are far from monolithic, I thought it was interesting that
there were "currents" of thought in India pushing this line, and there
were some bits (as I said) on the position of the Persian Gov't that
I had not seen anywhere else.