U.S., Iran talking face-to-face

VIENNA, Austria — A senior U.S. envoy will sit eye-to-eye for the first time today with a top Iranian nuclear negotiator, a sharp reversal in U.S. policy that aims to entice Tehran into ending activities that could be used to make atomic weapons.

The move to send Undersecretary of State William Burns to the Geneva nuclear talks has raised the hackles of Washington hard-liners who say it signals U.S. weakness. But supporters insist because both Tehran and the United States want to ease tensions, the move could breathe life into deadlocked nuclear talks.

On the eve of the meeting, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the talks offered hope for a peaceful solution to the standoff over Tehran's nuclear program. But he also expects no quick changes from Iran, which has said "the essentials" — an apparent reference to suspending uranium enrichment — will not be on the table.

"After the Geneva meeting, we must not hope for an improvement, a change of attitude, right away," Kouchner said in Paris.

The shift to direct talks follows months of rising tensions over the nuclear issue, fueled by Iranian missile launches, U.S. and Israeli threats to destroy what they charge is a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel's destruction.

Initially, supporters of the negotiations say, the U.S and its allies could agree to stop pushing for new U.N. sanctions if Tehran stops expanding its uranium-enrichment capacities — setting the stage for fuller negotiations and what the West hopes will be agreement from Tehran to dismantle its enrichment program.

Uranium enrichment can produce both reactor fuel and the core of nuclear warheads. Iran says it has a right to enrich for peaceful uses and continues expanding its program despite three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions sparked by concern that Iran's ultimate goal is to make weapons.

The Americans are part of a six-nation effort — the permanent Security Council members plus Germany — trying to encourage Iran to suspend its nuclear efforts in exchange for economic and political incentives.

American officials have insisted that Burns' presence will be a "one-time event" and he will listen to the Iranians but will not be negotiating. They also say the U.S. continues to demand that Iran fully freeze uranium enrichment — a point Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice again drove home Friday.

Sending Burns to Geneva is a "strong signal" that the United States is serious about diplomacy, but the U.S. continues to insist the start of negotiations with Iran is contingent on "the verifiable suspension of Iran's enrichment and reprocessing activities," Rice told reporters at the State Department.

Policy hawks disagree. John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and undersecretary of state in charge of Tehran's nuclear file, said the move represents a "U-turn" in the U.S. stance on Iran.

"To the Iranians, it will send a sign of the political weakness of a [U.S.] administration in its last days and desperate for a deal," he said.

Burns, who just took over the State Department's No. 3 post, played a key role in secret U.S. and British talks with Libya that convinced Tripoli to give up its weapons of mass destruction programs and, in 2003, was the official who received a faxed offer from Iran to open wide-ranging talks with the United States, noted Barbara Slavin, the author of a book on U.S.-Iranian relations, "Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies." The Bush administration rejected the offer.

"Obviously, the decision to send a U.S. representative is a major step forward, and it's a gesture of good faith," said Suzanne Maloney, a former State Department policy adviser. The U.S. has "always said this is a two-track policy, and yet one track has always been more robust than the other."

The United States and its five partners (Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China) have insisted all along that they want a full halt to Iranian enrichment. Still, Burns' decision to attend the Geneva talks shows that Washington may accept something less than full suspension, at least as a first step, to achieve its ultimate goal under a "freeze-for-freeze" proposal.

The "freeze-for-freeze" idea envisions a six-week commitment from both sides. Preliminary talks meant to lead to formal nuclear negotiations would start, Iran could continue enrichment but only at its present level, and the U.S. and its allies would stop pushing for new U.N. sanctions.

If that results in the start of formal talks, the Iranians would stop all enrichment temporarily. Those talks, in turn, are meant to secure Tehran's commitment for an indefinite ban on enrichment.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, speaking Friday in Ankara, Turkey, said the talks could also result in agreements to open a U.S. interest-protection bureau in Iran and establish have direct flights between the two nations.

U.S. interests in Iran are now represented by the Swiss Embassy in Tehran.

Iran and the United States broke off diplomatic relations after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Official contacts between the two countries are extremely rare.

If the Geneva talks make little progress, the White House will have some tough decisions to make, now that it has at least stretched — if not broken — its own rules on engaging the Iranians face to face on the nuclear issue. The administration could decide to pull out of the six-nation group trying to entice Iran into negotiations.

That would surely cripple the diplomatic effort to engage Tehran on the nuclear front — and increase fears of a U.S. military option, something the Bush administration has refused to rule out.

Tensions over Iran's nuclear activities began five years ago, with revelations that it had hidden enrichment activities for nearly two decades. A U.S. intelligence estimate last year says Iran tried to make nuclear weapons at least until 2003 — allegations Tehran vehemently denies.

Iran suspended enrichment that year but resumed in 2005 after rejecting EU incentives for a long-term halt to enrichment. The Geneva talks are based on a revamped version of the 2005 incentive package.

Tehran already is having difficulty financing its exports and attracting badly needed foreign investment after three rounds of U.N. sanctions and U.S. and EU actions that have prompted major banks to stop doing business with Iran.

Iran also appears to be taking seriously threats of military strikes against its nuclear facilities by Israel and the United States, they said.

Iran's leaders "can't sleep comfortably at night knowing that this [threat] isn't dead and buried," said a diplomat who deals with Iran and requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

Burns' presence is a low-risk venture for Bush, who approved the move, said Edward Walker, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt who once served as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs.

As a career diplomat, Burns "does not commit the political side at the White House," said Walker, an adjunct scholar with the Middle East Institute in Washington. "Yet he gives encouragement to our partners in the coalition and sends a hint to the Iranians that there may be more if they reciprocate."

Material from McClatchy Newspapers and Bloomberg News is included in this report.