AP's Non-Story On Iran Diplomacy

By Cernig

Sometimes, reporters stretch just a bit too far in search of spin to make a story stand out. The AP's John Heilprin seems to have done so today. Under the headline "US envoy predicts 'direct diplomacy' with Iran", he writes:

President Barack Obama's administration will engage in "direct diplomacy" with Iran, the newly installed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Monday.

Not since before the 1979 Iranian revolution are U.S. officials believed to have conducted wide-ranging direct diplomacy with Iranian officials. But U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice warned that Iran must meet U.N. Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment before any talks on its nuclear program.

"The dialogue and diplomacy must go hand in hand with a very firm message from the United States and the international community that Iran needs to meet its obligations as defined by the Security Council. And its continuing refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase," she told reporters during a brief question-and-answer session.

Now, Iran's "obligations as defined by the Security Council" do indeed include ending uranium enrichment, but the quote from Rice doesn't say anything about that being a precondition to US/Iran direct talks. After all, having as a precondition the very thing you're supposed to be negotiating towards is a sure-fire way to have no talks at all - as the Bush administration understood very well. If Rice had really said that there would be such a precondition for talks with Iran it would be a huge story, a massive departure from Obama's stated policy.

But she didn't. And Reuters quotes White House press spokesman Robert Gibbs as making that very clear:

Gibbs told a White House news conference that Rice was simply restating comments made by Obama on the presidential campaign trail and should not be seen as suggesting a new diplomatic initiative by the United States.

So, no new initiative yet - but also no changing what Obama had said. Just repeating Obama's campaign position without moving the ball forward at all. It's a non-story.

Comments

[Iran Affairs]

It is highly questionable whether the Security Council has the legal authority to demand that Iran suspend enrichment. The Security Council is bound by international law and its collective power is no more than the power of its constituents. Just as Russia cannot demand that the US cease enrichment, it cannot demand that Iran do so. The UNSC resolutions against IRan are ultra vires and non-binding.