MANAMA, Bahrain—U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have tried to tamp down the rhetoric against Iran in her speech Friday night here in Bahrain, but Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's speech Saturday morning was the same critical and defiant line his government has been taking for months.

Here at the 2010 IISS Manama Security Dialogue, the Clinton and Mottaki speeches were the most closely watched. Clinton's speech was well received; the Arab Gulf country representatives we spoke with all said they thought she projected an open and welcoming message. They noted that she made statements on Iran's right to nuclear energy while avoiding the usual U.S. criticisms of the regime many expected.

Mottaki's speech, however, was devoid of the kind of signals that might reassure Gulf or American diplomats that Iran was moving toward concessions or a warming of ties. The speech came only two days before Iran returns to the table to discuss its nuclear program with the P5+1 countries in Geneva.

Mottaki repeatedly disputed the idea that Arab countries were concerned and opposed to Iran's nuclear program, as was communicated to American diplomats and revealed in the disclosures of diplomatic cables by the website WikiLeaks.

"Muslims must be happy to see other Muslims becoming powerful," he said, rejecting the idea that Arab countries are suspicious of Iran. "Our power is your power," he told the Arab leaders assembled. "We must not allow the Western media to tell us what to think of each other."

He called the government of Israel a "counterfeit regime" and dismissed its establishment as an "excuse to provide a home for the victims of the second WorldWar."

Regarding the nuclear talks themselves, Mottaki questioned whether it would really be a dialogue or just a lecture from the United States. He declared that the U.S.-led international sanctions on Iran are having no effect, directly contradicting Clinton.

"If the other side believes they need more time to see the results of the sanctions, they can have more time. The sanctions have nothing to do with us and don't have an effect on our resolve," he said.

Mottaki pointed back to Iran's agreement with Turkey and Brazil for a fuel-swap arrangement but chastised Obama for rejecting that deal. He also said he saw no signs the Obama administration had done anything different in the Gulf region.

"We believe that the policies of President Obama are the same as President Bush's policies," he said. "We have two years of performance of President Obama in our region. Are we really seeing any kind of changes in the approaches of the Americans?"

In what some saw as a new concession by Iran, Mottaki explicitly endorsed the idea of an international fuel bank to manage and disperse nuclear fuel for civilian uses. But he had one heck of a caveat.

"We're in agreement with the creating of a fuel bank and we support that," he said. "And since we are a fuel producer and we have the technology for that, then in principle a branch of that bank will be established in the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Joshua Rogin / Foreign Policy

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, IRAN
 

LOGICAL123

6:36 PM ET

December 4, 2010

What is so complicated to understand about Iran?

It is amazing that after so many years the same ridiculous points are raised about the Iranian nuclear program. There is no chance on earth that Iran will stop its enrichment program which is fully compliant with the NPT rules. So, why is the US still trying to beat a dead horse? The US has made a complete fool of itself with the ridiculous sanctions that have only served to strengthen Iran by making it more self-reliant. If the P5+1 plan to demand that Iran stop its enrichment activities next week in Geneva, it might be better to just cancel the meeting. We all know what the results will be. When the West becomes serious about discussing substantive and meaningful issues, then perhaps a meeting will make sense.

 

GRANT

9:28 AM ET

December 5, 2010

The differences in approach

The differences in approach could be the point of Clinton's speech. She speaks about rights to peaceful energy and peace while Iran sounds more unreasonable.

 

LOGICAL123

3:16 PM ET

December 5, 2010

Where is Iran unreasonable?

Could you please educate us how Iran is unreasonable. Also, do you know that the latest US defense doctrine specifically targets Iran for a nuclear first strike? So, who is more reasonable?

 

NEOLEFT

11:18 PM ET

December 5, 2010

That's hardly a differences in approach

Even George Bush made the same statements.

The US do this all the time. Make public statements about how they accept Iran's right to nuclear power, and then they lay down unacceptable demands that must be met before talks even begin.

After decades of economic sanctions against Iran, the US expects Iran to give up everything and trust that the US will do the right thing and remain true to it's word that Iran will be provided the fuel it needs. Most people don;t realize that the last time Iran agreed to such an arrangement, France reneged on the deal and kept their uranium.

To add insult to injury, the US and Israel are actively supporting terror groups as they set off bombs in Tehran.

 

GRANT

2:40 PM ET

December 7, 2010

@Logical123: As stated in the

@Logical123: As stated in the entry Iran made more than a few aggressive arguments including an indirect insult at the talks themselves. Also I would want to see some very hard evidence about that 'first strike matter' as the U.S has a second strike doctrine for nuclear warfare and any other decisions would be classified.

@Neoleft: Your argument also ignores the fact that earlier in the decade Iran floated the idea of accepting nuclear energy from neighboring states (Kazakhstan and Russia chiefly) just as discussions were coming up on sanctions and when the discussions ended Iran scuppered those ideas. They made the same suggestion just before the latest round of sanction talks but it is interesting to note that few (including Russia) believed them this time. Also there is no evidence ever shown by any credible organization that the U.S is backing separatists in Iran along with a tendency in Iran to blame domestic problems on the U.K and the U.S.

 

NEOLEFT

11:24 PM ET

December 5, 2010

By the way Mr. Rogin

Why did you deliberately omit the promise by the Iranian FM that Iran will 'never' use force against Muslim neighbors?

Was that too defiant for your tastes?

 

Josh Rogin reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.

Read More

Enter your email address to get The Cable delivered to your inbox each night:

Delivered by FeedBurner