US caving in to Iranian diplomacy

The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice has summarised the four-year arc of her administration's diplomatic efforts to restrain Iran's nuclear programme. The decision to reverse four years of US policy and meet Iranian negotiators in Geneva is described as "a one time event" by her designed solely to hear Iran's response to the latest European offer. But what was Iranians response? Nothing, the Iranians didn't respond at all. Instead Tehran describes Washington's decision to attend the talks in Geneva as a victory for the revolution. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone further and called on his followers to "prepare for a new post-American world."
What has been Washington's response? To give more time to Iran. However, Rice and the other big power representatives have set a two-week deadline for a firm answer from Iran to their latest negotiating offer which ended on July 31. Iran has been offered a rich technical and trade package by the European Union. The Bush Administration has also promised to support Iranian construction of a light-water reactor and provide it with nuclear fuel. In addition, the US will help overhaul of Iran's energy infrastructure and cooperate in high-technology industries. Tehran, at any point, can simply walk away, keeping its rewards. Apart from this, the US plans to open diplomatic outpost in Iran.
Despite being offered lucrative and generous incentives by the US and the big powers, Iranians are holding on to their stance- not to suspend enrichment activities. Tehran asserts that it had previously done so, from October 2003 to August 2005, in order to allow negotiations with the Europeans to proceed, but those negotiations went nowhere. This time it has no intention of doing so as its enrichment is only for its nuclear power programme which is for producing fuel for civilian energy production. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei has vowed that they wouldn't accept any threats in negotiations with major world powers over its nuclear drive. He categorically added, "Iran's red lines are very clear."
Though Israel and the US have both refused to rule out military action against Iran, many see the recent "softening" of the American attitude towards Iran as a realisation of weakness of the US towards the latter. The US had imposed unilateral economic sanctions on Iran for nearly three decades, but still failed to get Iranian compliance. Ms Condoleezza Rice says that if the Iranians don't come to terms in two weeks, the United States will try to get a fourth round of penalties adopted at the United Nations.
Will this prove effective? I doubt, as the first three rounds of the UN sanctions have proven ineffective so far, not to mention the resolutions adopted in March this year, adding financial and travel sanctions on Iranian individuals and companies.
The Iranian steadfastness and the handling of the nuclear energy programme is a lesson for a country like Pakistan. Pakistan is the only nuclear Muslim state in the world and yet our leaders take dictation from the United States of America. Why? When a non-nuclear state like Iran can hold its ground and show the world that its supreme national interest is superior and hold negotiations only and only on the basis that no one makes any threat than why can't Pakistan. We should hold our heads high in the comity of nations that we are at par with all and inferior to none.
The writer is a former research fellow at the Institute of Strategic Studies.