After a period of silence on the “Iran file”, the P5+1 will present Tehran with a new incentive package to convince the Iranians to suspend their enrichment program and enter negotiations. This is the second time the five permanent members offer a package. The first time was in 2006, which was rejected by Tehran.
Nobody thinks Tehran will accept the new offer as it crosses its red line – suspension of enrichment – and does not give Tehran what they want most i.e. U.S non-aggression guarantees (by a new U.S president).
On Monday, Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh ruled out accepting intrusive nuclear inspections unless there was an end to “double standards” on global non-proliferation that it said benefited nuclear arms powers.
But, as a report by the NIA Council, asks: why is this offer being made now? Trita Parsi notes the “nuclear offer coincides with an escalation of rhetoric between Washington and Tehran over allegations of Iranian meddling in Iraq.”
General David Petreus, the new head of CENTCOM, is reportedly preparing a presentation of evidence showcasing Iran’s direct involvement in the violence in Iraq. He is on record as seeing Iran’s hand in Iraq. But he – and the Bush administration – may be looking to shape the autumn’s electioral discussion of Iran.
If so, they are unlikely to succeed. On Iran, there are three policy options: what can be described as 1) “the coercive option”; 2) a Denis Ross-style incremental diplomacy; or 3) a game-changing event like a major offer of a “grand bargain”, which includes security guarantees.
The EU would obviously favor the latter, but I think that all presidential candidates, including John McCain, would at some point be willing to go down this route whatever their current rhetoric. Either way, it makes the timing of the P5+1 offer peculiar.
