But Ahmadi-nejad made no such offer.
Critics in Tehran are pointing to an interview he gave David Ignatius of The Washington Post during the president’s visit last month to the UN General Assembly.
At one point in the English transcript, Ignatius asked Ahmadi-nejad, “If after the US elections, if the US is interested in dialogue with Iran about Afghanistan, direct discussions might be welcome?”
That was clearly a query about holding bilateral talks, something forbidden by Khamenehi.
Ahmadi-nejad answered, “Yes,” but then said, “We have been the main architects of several regional meetings.” The “yes” sounded like an acceptance of bilateral talks, but his immediate citation of “regional meetings” was a reference to multilateral talks.
Later Ignatius asked, “After the US election, do you think Iranian officials would be interested in sitting down for [a] sort of broad discussion of a new architecture for security in your region?”
Ahmadi-nejad responded by repeating one of his long-time themes, about the need for a new world order without the Americans bullying the world. He readily agreed with Ignatius on the benefits of discussing a “new architecture” for security. But Ahmadi-nejad never picked up on Ignatius’ underlying theme of bilateral talks.
“We have always been ready [for talks on security,” the president said, without addressing whom the talks would be with. “I do believe we are in need of a new viewpoint vis-à-vis the management of world affairs.”
But back in Tehran, critics began asserting that Ahmadi-nejad had violated orders from Khamenehi by agreeing bilateral Iran-US talks.
In the Majlis, deputies raised questions about Ahmadi-nejad’s conduct.
The most stinging rebuke, however, came from Hossain Shariatmadari, the editor of the ultra hardline daily Kayhan.
“Mr. Ahmadi-nejad and his advisors should have known that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s opposition against negotiations and relations with America are based on a strong and undeniable logic rather than taste,” Shariatmadari wrote.
“When Dr. Ahmadi-nejad in his interview with The Washington Post expressed Iran’s readiness and interest in establishing ties with America, his offer was expected to be immediately and warmly welcomed by Obama and other high-ranking American officials,” Shariatmadari wrote, in a huge mischaracterization of the interview.
“But neither Obama nor other American officials showed the slightest interest in Dr. Ahmadi-nejad’s offer. They only turned a cold shoulder to his offer.”
Shariatmadari said, “I wish there were some legal advisors and senior political experts among the president’s entourage of more than 100 persons to New York so that they could advise him before his interviews and comments.”
Ahmadi-nejad may have been tripped up by his standard practice in interviews, which is to pay minimal attention to the questions he is asked and then segue into a speech or harangue on one of his favorite themes.
It appears likely that multilateral talks involving Iran and the Big Six powers will resume later this year. The six powers met last Thursday to discuss the talks with Iran, which have gone nowhere.
A US official told the Associated Press the Big Six were prepared to sit down again with Iran to discuss its nuclear program. But the official said the Islamic Republic would have to make a significantly better offer.
At the last meeting with the Big Six, Iran proposed to confine its enrichment of uranium to less than 5 percent in exchange for the abolition of all sanctions. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton termed that offer a “non-starter.”
The AP reported the Big Six instructed Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief, to contact Saeed Jalili, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator.
It wasn’t made clear if the Big Six wanted to see a new written proposal in advance of any face-to-face talks.