MANAMA, Bahrain — International sanctions are not likely to convince Tehran to abandon its nuclear program and Monday’s talks in Geneva between Iran and the P5+1 countries are only the first step in a process that could take years to succeed, according to Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.

Bildt, who is considered one of Europe’s leading voices on foreign policy, is no friend of Iran. He’s a vocal critic of Iran’s human rights record and has worked hard to free Europeans held in Iranian prisons. But he gave a speech on Sunday at the 2010 IISS Manama Security Dialogue that included criticism of the sanctions regime the United States and Europe have worked to put in place. He also happened to sit next to Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki at the Dec. 3 gala dinner at which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke.

The Cable sat down with Bildt on Sunday for an exclusive interview about Iran, the nuclear negotiations, and his dinner date with the Iranian leader.

Bildt disagreed with Clinton’s view, expressed in our exclusive interview with her two days before, that the international sanctions regime had brought Iran back to the table and was thus having an effect on the Iranian leadership’s decision making.

“They were at the table one year ago, they were at the table six months ago, and they are at the table again. And I think it’s at the table where the solution can be found. I fail to see any solution that is not at the table,” Bildt said.

“The sanctions are part of the scene but they are not the solution,” he told The Cable. “There are some people that seem to believe sanctions are going to sort out the problem itself, as if you have sufficiently hard sanctions, the Iranians are suddenly going to fold and say, ‘We agree with everything that you’ve said.’ That’s a pipe dream.”

Sanctions might have some effect over the long term, but that could take a very long time, he said.

“You’re talking about a 10, 15, 20 year process,” Bildt said. “The thing that can change things in the near term is the talks.”

But even the nuclear negotiations that begin on Monday in Geneva will need several follow-up sessions before progress is can be made, said Bildt.

“I think we’re talking about a fairly lengthy process. We have a gulf of mistrust between the Iranians and the Americans that is profound. One side is locked into 1979 and one side is locked into 1953,” Bildt said, referring to the dates of Islamic Revolution and the U.S. sponsored coup that overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh. “It will have to be a step by step approach, where you start by some smaller steps before you’re ready to take some bigger steps.”

Luckily, the West has some more time to negotiate with Iran, Bildt added, because he believes that their nuclear progress is going much slower than anyone anticipated.

And what about his dinner with Mottaki? Bildt said he told Mottaki that Clinton’s speech, which focused on Iran’s right to civilian nuclear development and avoided harsh criticisms, was a huge change in tone from the American side made in the hope of improving relations.

Bildt said that Mottaki agreed, but that the Iranian diplomat doubted it would make much of a difference in the end.

“I said to Mottaki, ‘this is significant,’” Bildt related, referring to Clinton’s direct outreach to the Iranian delegation.

“'Yes, yes,’ he said, ‘it is,’” Bildt quoted Mottaki as telling him. “But there many people in Tehran who don’t believe it,” Mottaki added.

Josh Rogin

 

JESSE245

6:01 AM ET

December 6, 2010

Iran and the US

A very interesting article. Mottaki’s comments were particularly intriguing. The atmosphere of mistrust has to be one of the hardest obstacles to finding some sort of solution. Bildt’s comment about how the US is stuck in 1979 and Iran in 1953 is absolutely brilliant and seems to sum up the issue quite nicely.

How the two sides seem to see each other are simply absurd. The US sees Iran as some conglomeration of irrational religious nuts while Iran sees the US as an oligarchy of imperialist sociopaths. Direct negotiations would do so much to begin to reign in these conceptions of each other. Even agreement on relatively small issues would begin to shape the relationship in mutually beneficial ways. However, the question does remain: would the Iranian leadership be able to have serious rapprochement with the US without losing partial domestic legitimacy? For example, many of the governments oppressive measures are justified by showing the US as an active enemy. Therefore, rapprochement with the US would call into question the reasons behind these measures. If that is the case then I doubt whether they would agree to serious direct negotiations. On the other hand, if that is the case, the US should be eager to start the talks.

On a side note, Bildt’s comment that Iran’s nuclear progress is slower than anticipated is justified by an article on Hoffman’s blog in which he talks about how the Russia’s believe that Iran is a ways from developing a serious nuclear threat: http://hoffman.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/29/what_russia_said_about_those_iranian_missiles

 

JJACKSON

12:39 PM ET

December 6, 2010

I concur Excellent article,

I concur

Excellent article, lots of common sense, just too short. The problem identified in “However, the question does remain: would the Iranian leadership be able to have serious rapprochement with the US without losing partial domestic legitimacy?” cuts both ways. The US has been selling Iran to its own public as ‘Evil’ for so long it is going to be tricky to re-brand them as ‘like our Saudi friends but Shia’ - which is about right - neither are very pleasant but then again neither are we.
The rate of progress on the nuclear front needs to be clarified, are we talking civil or military? The Iranians, and NIE, would say only the first is real. Part of the West's propaganda campaign has always been to ignore the NIE and preface all MSM articles with 'Iran's nuclear weapons program' or very occasionally 'Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program'. On the civil (with military potential) side Israel and the US have always pushed the 'worst case scenario' that Iran is much further along than most objective observers. Iran has admitted 'set backs' at Natnaz but not that Stuxnet had anything to do with it. So who is the top Nation State cyber terrorist? Cablegate implies China is pretty good but Stuxnet is the gold standard and Israel or the US look much more likely candidates.

 

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

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

Delivered by FeedBurner