Will the remarkable initiative of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to the American people lead somewhere? Khatami's overture, made in an interview televised by CNN, has generated questions about his true motives and about what the proper American response should be.
What the proper response should be depends on which interpretation one has for the Iranian motives for this overture. Broadly speaking, two have been offered. The first argues that Iran is motivated by opportunism, that it wants to reduce tensions with America in order to eliminate barriers to better relations with neighboring countries and with Europe. Notably, Khatami and other Iranian leaders are not willing to go so far as establishing a serious dialogue with the U.S. government, which could eventually culminate in the resumption of diplomatic relations.
The proponents of this interpretation emphasize those aspects of the interview that were critical of the United States. They question Khatami's ability to deliver on a genuine policy of opening up to the United States, even if he wanted to.
As a result, these observers argue that the United States should not alter its policy toward Iran in any significant way until Iran meets U.S. conditions and changes its behavior in key areas. These center on Iran's support for international terrorism, its opposition to the Arab-Israeli peace process and its effort to develop weapons of mass destruction.
The other interpretation of Khatami's remarks recognizes the boldness of his statements and the opportunities they offer for improvement in U.S.-Iranian relations. It attributes this move to a deeper realization of the need for better relations with the U.S., coupled with fundamental changes within Iranian society and polity, notably a gradual but inexorable loss of revolutionary elan and the reassertion of a more nationalist outlook.
Proponents of this interpretation know the context of Iranian politics and the process of decision-making, and that such a bold statement by the Iranian president could not have been made without agreement, or at least acquiescence, of other key figures, notably the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As a result, these observers recommend a positive, albeit measured, American response.
