© IRAN-RESIST.ORG – April 3 2009 | Before the beginning of the conference in The Hague, Washington mentioned the possibility of an Iranian cooperation in the form of a reinforced surveillance at the Iranian-Afghan border by the Iranian officials, a specific task that would have forced its officials to dialogue with their American counterparts. The objective was to involve the mullahs in a process of bilateral cooperation that is favorable to dialogue and compromises. In order to avoid to be dragged, Tehran clearly refused a bilateral cooperation and the limitation of its intervention in Afghanistan : an essential gesture in its relations with the United States.| Decoding |

The limitation of the cooperation field of the border surveillance is an essential point of the plan offered by the United States.Such delimitation is at once tactical and very pragmatic. Both aspects are beside intermingled.

Tactical trap | If the mentioned purpose is to fight drug traffic [1]. Everybody knows there’s another purpose behind this border fixation. The Deutsch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Maxime Verhagen, whose country organized the conference, besides specified it into a TV program dealing with this conference : Taliban receive weapons via Iran. To tell the truth, Tehran provides Iranian artisanal bombs and Russian weapons to the Taliban so that Afghanistan remains unstable and unsuitable to be used as an access corridor to Central Asia.

Thus Tehran satisfies its Russian ally and puts pressure on the Americans to prompt them to make concessions in exchange of its cooperation.

It is thus essential for the United States to obtain such -pragmatic- cooperation avoiding giving in in return -tactical. This also allows them to dispose of a right of inspection on the Iranian-Afghan border and then on the Iranian territory -pragmatic. At last, this common mission of surveillance -that is politically correct as it is an anti-drug one- imposes some exchanges between the Iranian officials and their American counterparts -tactical- and it involves the Iranian officials into a process of dialogue and compromise by also denying them a role in Afghanistan that would be beyond the Iranian territory !

No country can refuse an initiative that is against drug traffic. Tehran then said yes but it looked for ways to escape from this politically correct and tactical trap that is conceived to involve it into a process of dialogue and compromises.

Iranian answer | In order to be successful, Tehran chose to be offensive by criticizing the central role of the States that are present with their soldiers so to offer in return a regional cooperation under the aegis of the United Nations. Moreover it stated that it wished to be one of the pillars of the regional cooperation by taking part of the infrastructures renovation in Afghanistan at its own expenses. Tehran offered to build roads, schools or dams. This is the equivalent of a physical presence of the Iranian building companies in Afghanistan, companies that are ruled by chance by the Pasdaran.

To make the mullahs come to this conference and involve them into a process of a very limited bilateral cooperation, Washington had to ask to its regional allies, Pakistan, Qatar, Turkey and Afghanistan to greet the accuracy of the regional policies of the mullahs. The latter took advantage of the situation to require a regional role that would be beyond the limits fixed by the Americans, a role that is not accordance anymore with the speech made by the Americans, the Europeans and the UNO.

Decoding | However it is suitable to specify that the aim was not specifically to install the Pasdaran in Afghanistan to develop there some bias that would follow the model of the Hezbollah or the Hamas because the Afghan constitution forbids ideological parties. The mullahs reacted to contradict the Americans and provoke them. Moreover this worked well because Washington didn’t dare to pick up the sling so to not ruin its dialogue efforts and it even made a first step toward the mullahs.

Actually by refusing the American limits at The Hague, the mullahs simply delimitated the real American ambitions that are counter to them -dialogue, compromises and capitulation- and took again the lead into those preliminary approaches whose stake is to find the basic consensus to make the official negotiation start with a view of official agreement.

The Western Medias are wrong to mention some unfreezing that could come out onto a dialogue. Both States are talking to each other indirectly via such approaches : negotiations already started, they are current, they trample on and can fail for lack of basic consensus as they didn’t left the stage of those preliminary flickering that appear so insignificant to the eyes of Western journalists.

The latest evolution of the preliminaries | At The Hague, after their denial speech, the mullahs expected a step forward from the Americans that would not be similar to a defeat on the Afghan field. However, to avoid any friction, the Americans avoided such subject and /i>centered the meeting on an insignificant and apolitical subject -not linked with Afghanistan- so they involuntarily came very close to the concept of broadened dialogue, synonymous of some availability of Iran for compromises.

Bye ! | Therefore the handshake between the representatives of the mullahs and the one of the United States became a step forward from Tehran ! It triggered denials in quick succession from the mullahs who denied any meeting or discussion that were not connected with the topic -Afghanistan. Willing to not break off such preliminaries, the day after those denials, on Thursday 2 April, Washington shut up by making acknowledge that there was no dialogue except from a simple “good morning” ! The day before Tehran mentioned its “bye”-availability for meetings on invitation that would recognize the regional role of Iran…

Preliminaries are continuing.
All our articles in English...
The french version of this article :
- Iran – Etats-Unis : Préliminaires ratés à la conférence sur l’Afghanistan
- (3 AVRIL 2009)

| Mots Clefs | Institutions : Diplomatie (selon les mollahs) |

| Mots Clefs | Décideurs : Hillary Clinton |
| Mots Clefs | Enjeux : Rétablir les rel. avec les USA & Négociations directes |
| Mots Clefs | Enjeux : Garanties Régionales de Sécurité : le DEAL US |

| Mots Clefs | Zone géopolitique / Sphère d’influence : Afghanistan |

[1To fight drug traffic | The cooperation subject is doubly not well chosen because such traffic is a very profitable trade for the mullahs.