Exclusive: Clinton on Iran: The regime is on the ropes

Posted By Josh Rogin Friday, December 3, 2010 - 12:32 PM Share

MANAMA, Bahrain—U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in Bahrain today, getting ready to deliver the opening address at the IISS Manama Security Dialogue. But before she speaks, she'll attend a dinner along with her Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

The two leaders cross paths just three days before Iran will meet with the Security Council's big powers in Geneva for the first multilateral discussions on Iran's nuclear program in more than a year. Dozens of governments from around the world are gathered here in Manama, all of them waiting to hear what Clinton and Mottaki will say.

Earlier today, Clinton sat down exclusively with The Cable to lay out her expectations for the Iran meeting and explain what will follow. She said that the Iranian regime is suffering under sanctions and is experiencing new problems with its nuclear program, which is why Tehran has come back to the table now. But the United States is not offering Iranian leaders an extended engagement, as in 2009. This time, they had better be serious about negotiating right away, she suggested.

"We have to see what attitude they bring," Clinton said about the Iranians. "I don't think we can put timetables on it. This is more of a day-by-day assessment. We know where we're headed, and that is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. We know we have the vast majority of the world with us on that. But I think we're going to have to take stock of where we are after Geneva... The pressure's not lifting because they're coming to the table in Geneva. And then we'll take it step by step."

She said that recent setbacks in the Iranian nuclear program have put the Iranians in a weaker position. "If they're having difficulties, maybe they'll be more responsive, but we won't know until we test it," Clinton said.

If Clinton does get a chance to speak with Mottaki tonight, she wants to convey to him that the administration is serious about this round of engagement and hopes there will be progress, but at the same time, the Obama team believes that Iran is probably coming to Geneva only because sanctions are taking their toll.

"I don't think they ever believed that we could put together the international coalition we did for sanctions," Clinton said. "And from all that we hear from people in this region and beyond, they're worried about the impact. And so they're returning to Geneva and we hope they are returning to negotiate."

But will Clinton actually talk to Mottaki before she leaves for Washington late tonight?

"If he comes to the dinner, I'll probably see him. But he doesn't talk to me," Clinton said.

In a separate interview with the BBC's Kim Ghattas, Clinton said that Iran could be permitted to maintain its own domestic uranium enrichment program, for civilian purposes, if and when it proves to the international community that it can be trusted to do so.

"We've told them that they are entitled to the peaceful use of civil nuclear energy, but they haven't yet restored the confidence of the international community to the extent where the international community would feel comfortable allowing them to enrich," Clinton told the BBC. "They can enrich uranium at some future date once they have demonstrated that they can do so in a responsible manner in accordance with international obligations."

Clinton told The Cable that progress with Iran was linked to the Iranian government's actions on other items on the U.S. agenda.

"We'll have to see how the Iranians respond on other things we've engaged them on, such as the two hikers who are still there in prison and [former FBI agent Robert] Levinson, who is also in Iran in our opinion. So let's see where it goes."

Internal divisions in Iran's government, however, may be complicating its ability to strike a deal, she suggested.

"You're dealing with a regime that has been badly shaken by the events of June 2009, the election, and the decision-making apparatus was knocked off kilter, which meant that trying to get any action step out of them was more difficult than it would have been prior to June 2009. So none of this is a static situation," she said.

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, IRAN

(5)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

CLAY FORSBERG

6:11 PM ET

December 3, 2010

Could Iran's weakness be due to a generational shift?

Excellent piece Josh. I find it interesting that Hillary references the election of 2009 (along with the problems in Iran's nuclear program) as being instrumental in their present weakened state. After the election the whole opposition matter kind of just went away - at least in the major media.

If indeed the opposition is still viable, then their influence will only get stronger. Their basis of support was in the young generation, Iran's Generation Y. As communications technology, such as Twitter, becomes more prevalent, more of this generation will jump on board and join ranks. This progression happen in any trend or movement. That along with enormous presence of Iranian oversees in developed areas fueling a new thought process will create a tsunami that will be impossible to stop.

Rather than concerning ourselves with bombing Iran into the stone age, we should just let the inevitable shift in attitude, due to the generational change ... take place. On top of that, any internal reform will have much more acceptance and staying power than anything done externally.

ZATHRAS

6:32 PM ET

December 3, 2010

I'm glad to see the Secretary

I'm glad to see the Secretary of State take note of the importance of June 2009 for Iran, even if it did take her until December 2010.

DC106

6:40 PM ET

December 3, 2010

Clinton is a liar!

The bulk of the US and Israeli population have been brainwashed into believing Iran is a threat just like they were brainwashed – and still believe according to most polls – that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was connected to Al Qaeda and 9/11.

Regardless of what the civilian population of the US believes, it has absolutely no control over what its government actually does. An election every couple of years which removes a handful of Congressional members and replaces them with new ones totally subservient to the same campaign contributors and Israel provides no means to actually enforce “democratic control” of the state.

Even if it did have such control, the US electorate is so unconcerned about the continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, due to the current economic conditions, that US threats to start another war in Iran seem to be completely off their radar. I can assure you that the average American really has NO accurate idea what is going on in terms of Iran. Given the total control of the mainstream media by the Israel Lobby and the military-industrial complex, there is absolutely no way the US electorate is going to be persuaded to take the kind of massive action it would require to force the US government to not pursue the course it is pursuing.

In other words, stay tuned for another disastrous war for the benefit of the American Corporatocracy.

ALIMOSTOFI

9:07 PM ET

December 3, 2010

Iranian regime

She is finally referring to them correctly. Yes they are "the Iranian regime" and not Iranians. Big difference.

LOGICAL123

6:24 PM ET

December 4, 2010

Hillary Clinton continues to dream

Hillary Clinton says, "They can enrich uranium at some future date once they have demonstrated that they can do so in a responsible manner in accordance with international obligations." Well, isn't it nice of her. Who is she to decide when Iran is "responsible" and what "international obligations" is she talking about? It is not the business of the US to decide what Iran can and cannot do when it is fully compliant with NPT rules.

Also, Clinton still believes in the fiction that the sanctions are hurting Iran and are forcing Iran to negotiate. Sanctions have actually helped Iran build up its industrial base and to make it self-reliant. For example, they are now exporting gasoline instead of importing it. As far as negotiations are concerned, Iran has always been interested in negotiations. So, the idea that sanctions are forcing Iran to negotiate is just nonsense.