Iran-U.S. Relations Ebb & Flow

Iran will likely approve a plan to allow wider nuclear inspections. But it won't turn over al Qaeda suspects.

The U.S. is condemning Tehran's "dangerous" policies. But, says a top U.S. official, "We do not seek conflict."

After decades of crystal-clear enmity, Iran and the United States seem to be sending one another mixed signals. The overall message, however, seems to be that despite vast differences, there is room for improvement.

That's a far cry from their polarized positions after the 1979 Iranian revolution, and marks progress since President Bush's "axis of evil" speech in 2002.

However, there are plenty of obstacles in the way toward any semblance of normal relations between the two countries.

Nuclear weapons are one. Iran faces a Friday deadline to prove to the IAEA that its nuclear projects are entirely peaceful. If Iran fails to satisfy the IAEA, the U.N. agency is expected to refer the matter to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

The country's parliament will likely approve allowing unfettered inspections of nuclear facilities by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, a step Iran had promised.

The country, however, has been vague about when it would open up to inspections — just as it has been vague about when and for how long it would halt uranium enrichment.

Terrorism is another obstacle. Iran on Tuesday rejected a U.S. demand to hand over senior al Qaeda operatives, saying the terror suspects would stand trial in Iranian courts, state-run radio reported.

Responding in Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said: "We remain deeply concerned about these kind of objectionable and damaging policies that Iran has pursued with regard to supporting terrorism…And we remain particularly concerned by the presence of senior al Qaeda figures in Iran."

Also Tuesday, President Bush blamed recent attacks in Iraq on foreign terrorists. Asked if he was addressing the issue with Syria and Iran, the president said: "We're working closely with those countries to let them know that we expect them to enforce borders, prevent people from coming across borders, if, in fact, we catch them doing that."

Briefing the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions, support for terrorism and interference in Iraq as major problems in Tehran's "dangerous policy."

But according to The New York Times, Armitage ruled out "regime change" there.

And he sounded a subtly optimistic note about talks with Tehran.

Armitage told senators that U.S. policy in Iran is "to support the Iranian people in their aspirations for a democratic, prosperous country that is a trusted member of the international community."

It's a policy, he said, that "weighs the full range of options available to us, both through bilateral and multilateral means" — an apparent reference to military force.

But he quickly added that "not every policy issue needs to be dealt with by force."

"Secretary Powell also noted last week that we do not seek conflict with Iran," Armitage said.

The other options on the table, he said, include "limited discussions with the government of Iran about areas of mutual interest, as appropriate."

"We have not, however, entered into any broad dialogue with the aim of normalizing relations," he added. "Although we make no conclusions about the nature of Iranian intent, we have encouraged such constructive behavior by engaging in direct dialogue on issues of mutual and immediate concern," Armitage said.

Armitage then excoriated Iran for the flaws U.S. administration have long cited, like its weapons programs and alleged backing for Hezbollah.

But he also admitted that the U.S. was wrong earlier this year to enter into a temporary cease-fire with an Iraq-based group bent on overthrowing Iran's leaders.