President Mohammad Khatami was among the first to lend his voice to the chorus of world leaders condemning the 11th September attacks on New York and Washington. Many other Iranian officials from both sides of the political divide soon joined the President in unequivocally denouncing the acts of terrorism against the United States. Even the routine chants of “Death to America!” that have become a staple part of the Friday Prayers in Iran ceased.

Within a few days after the kamikaze attacks in the US, nearly all the political forces in Iran had unanimously condemned them. Adopting such a collective stance on a subject of foreign affairs was certainly unprecedented. Apart from a few print media controlled by the radical conservative wing, the contents of most other papers also support this hypothesis.

The speed and cross-factional nature of Tehran’s condemnation was quickly picked up in Washington as analysts discussed the possibility of a relatively speedy Iran-US rapprochement, or at least the warming up of bilateral relations.

Indeed, the tragedy in America reminded both governments of their shared interests, particularly in regard to their opposition to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. In addition, Washington hinted that it was willing to overlook its objections to the behaviour of states like Iran, in order to enhance its chances of success in the current operations against Osama bin Laden.

Direct and indirect messages were bandied about. In a rare move, Secretary of State Colin Powell sent a letter directly to Tehran, via the US interest section in the Swiss Embassy. The exact contents of the letter were never fully revealed. The press was only told that the Bush Administration found the Islamic Republic’s position interesting enough to pursue further possibilities of co-operation.

Prospects looked even brighter when, after a telephone conversation between President Khatami and Prime Minister Tony Blair, the British were so encouraged that they decided to send their foreign secretary, Jack Straw, to Tehran immediately, rather than wait for the scheduled trip in November. Trailing Mr. Straw was an EU Troika delegation, which confirmed the general theory that things were going very well.

That is why many analysts were taken off-guard when Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivered what was widely regarded as an anti-American diatribe on 26th September, the day after Mr. Straw’s visit.

During his speech in front of the veterans and families of martyrs of the Iran-Iraq war, Mr. Khamenei accused the US of overstepping its rights and taking advantage of the 11th September bombings. He was also unequivocal about the fact that "Islamic Iran will not participate in any measure that is led by the United States," which he said was not “fit” to lead an international anti-terrorist effort.

Few were surprised by the Iranian Leader’s stance that Iran would not stand side-by-side with the Americans in an attack on neighbouring Afghanistan. Iranian officials had made it abundantly clear that they would only support an effort led by the United Nations. Even Mr. Straw went on the record stating that he was not trying to seek military help from the Iranians. But the harsh tone of the Leader’s speech and the fact that “Death to America!” chants were resumed for the first time since the attacks on New York and Washington, indicate that Tehran is not pleased with the messages coming from the United States.

President Khatami’s speech the next day echoed similar sentiments. Although Khatami was typically less hard-line than the Leader, his speech did include an uncharacteristic direct criticism of the American president. Referring to Bush’s statements that countries stand either with the US or with the terrorists, the Iranian president said: “Sometimes a powerful people become arrogant to the extent that they think they are absolutely right and those with objections are wrong. Such a way of thinking is not right at all.”

Why the change of tone?

Concomitant with the high-level European officials shuttle diplomacy to Tehran, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) held a unique meeting at which Leader Khamenei personally sat in on the session, instead of relying on his representative. To appreciate the event, it should be recalled that the last time an Iranian leader took a direct part in an SNSC meeting dated back to the Iran-Iraq War.

Behind various closed doors the leaders of the Islamic Republic reached the conclusion that Iran would do best not to associate itself too closely with the Americans. Nonetheless, Tehran is also remaining unequivocal about its condemnation of the attacks, also in stating that it wants to be part of an international, UN-led effort against terrorism; but not one that is unilaterally spearheaded by Washington.

No doubt various factors were at play in getting Iran to this point. Arguably the fact that had the most impact on Iran was the threatening tone adopted by the United States. This issue goes considerably beyond the famous “you are either with us or with the terrorist” quote of President Bush now that the Americans have indicated that they intend to overthrow the Taliban regime. The Iranian leaders, mistrustful of the Americans to start with, are obviously deeply concerned with the issue, not knowing if, soon after the Taliban, Washington would turn on regimes like that in Tehran. Compounding the problem is the fact that the Americans are contemplating returning the former Afghan monarch, which is certainly unwelcome news for an Islamic regime that came about after overthrowing a monarch itself.

These sentiments can be detected in the important Friday Prayer sermon this week, which was given by former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. In his own words:

“One of their biggest mistakes is that they are threatening certain countries. You have heard their remarks. They say that they will begin with the Al-Qa’ida and one by one they get to other terrorists and those who support the terrorists. Previously, they had also said who the supporters of terrorists were. Firstly, a certain five or six countries come to mind, and then whichever country they wish can be added to that list. Because only a ball-point pen is needed to add a name to that list. Such threats are also not right. What would the result of such threats be? They will stop co-operating with you if they see that they are going to be next after the Al-Qa’ida. They not only stop co-operating with you; they will also oppose you. The current situation is not a situation in which one could say I am the bully and that is it. The current situation needs an invitation for co-operation.”

Similar concerns are seen among the groups forming the reformist faction. For example, the Islamic Revolution’s Mujahedin Organisation (IRMO), a powerful reformist group close to the President, released a communiqué stating its analysis of the situation. IRMO questioned the true motive of the Americans, accusing Washington of taking advantage of the 11th September tragedy to advance its regional ambitions. “This huge military deployment once again is reminiscent of the presence of America and its willing or coerced allies in the Persian Gulf and the attack on Iraq, but on a greater scale. IRMO, like many other groups in Iran, are afraid that the US is intent on increasing and fortifying its presence in the region.

A myriad of other issues comes to mind. Iran has serious disagreements with the United States regarding the definition of terrorism. This is most obvious in the case of various Palestinian groups and Lebanese Hizbollah, which the Islamic Republic regards as legitimate freedom fighters, and not terrorists.

Then there is the role of Tehran as one of the leaders of the Muslim world. How can the Islamic Republic not oppose an attack that could lead to the deaths of innocent Muslim civilians? How could the clerical regime in Tehran not speak out against what it sees as the Israelis taking advantage of the situation against the Palestinians? President Bush’s naïve use of the term “crusade” to describe America’s war on terrorism did not help matters in this respect. Furthermore, since the US has not turned over any concrete evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks in Washington and New York, the Iranians’ sense of paranoia has been heightened. Some use this to fortify their argument that the US is really following a different agenda. Others worry that if at a later date another group were found responsible, the Islamic Republic would lose a great deal of credibility among its own people and in front of the Muslim world in general.

In essence, while Tehran initially saw the 11th September event as an opportunity to pursue its interests vis-à-vis Washington, it soon interpreted US requirements for a deal as an invitation to a legitimacy crisis. No doubt Tehran is also aware of the dangers that come along with not co-operating with Washington at this critical juncture and is concerned with possibly being subjected to the wrath of America’s terrorist-hunt, given that it is listed by the State Department as the leading state sponsor of terrorism.

By repeatedly speaking out against terrorism and the September attacks, and by offering to take an active part in a UN-led fight against the “cancerous tumour” of global terrorism, Iran is addressing some of these concerns. But the Islamic Republic has perhaps also concluded that it has more cards tucked up its sleeve than the Bush Administration would like to openly admit.

The United States needs the leading Muslim nations to supports its cause, if nothing else in order to minimise the possibility of a major, dangerous anti-American backlash in the Islamic world. Three nations are crucial in this regard: Saudi Arabia and Egypt for the Sunni Muslims and Iran for the Shi’a. Hence, it is not surprising that Iran is finding it easier to take on a more demanding tone at a time when its position seems well co-ordinated with the other mentioned nations. It is also no coincidence that Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi is in Cairo, marking the first time ever that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is meeting with an official from the Islamic Republic.

The game between Tehran and Washington is getting more complicated and the outcome is not yet fully predictable. But the new tone from Iranian leaders does not spell the end. The Americans have asked the Japanese to use their influence to talk to Iran. This time, the Iranians are much more in tune with what they deem acceptable and what is out of the question.