The United States on Monday denied a British press report of back-channel talks between Washington and Iran on Tehran's controversial nuclear program.

In London, The Independent newspaper reported Monday that a group of former US diplomats and foreign policy experts had been holding talks for the past five years with Iranian academics and policy advisers, in hopes of reaching a breakthrough on the diplomatic impasse.

But a White House official on Monday, speaking anonymously, said "clear channels" exist for communication with Iran, and that the approach described in the Independent article "isn't one of them."

The daily quoted former US undersecretary of state Thomas Pickering as saying that the United States had pursued five years of talks with Iran, despite decades of tense relations publicly, and amid continuing strife over the Islamic Republic's failure to heed international ultimatums that it suspend uranium enrichment.

The US State Department was equally emphatic that the talks described in the article were "not a government activity," but instead "a set of private discussions."

"It is not a channel for negotiation. It is not a channel to pass messages. It has no official standing whatsoever," said Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman.

Casey said however that the United States was not indisposed to the talks going ahead.

"It is a set of private discussions by private individuals and we are happy to see those move forward. But no one should mistake that for any kind of formal, informal or any kind of channel. Period."

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported last week that the Bush administration has launched "an interagency assessment of what is known about Iranian activities and intentions, how to combat them and how to capitalize on them."

The United States broke diplomatic relations with Iran in April 1980, after Iranian students seized the US embassy and held hundreds of US diplomats captive in the aftermath of its revolution, and the two countries have had tense relations ever since.

earlier related report
Outside View: Legitimize Iran opposition
As CIA Director Michael Hayden asserted his belief that Iran is at a minimum leaving the option for a nuclear weapon wide open, is confrontation now becoming an ever growing certainty?

In the eyes of the U.S. administration, there seems little doubt as to Tehran's intentions, as the CIA director becomes the third significant figure in the Bush administration to state what he believes is an intention by Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

In an interview with ABC News last month, Vice President Dick Cheney alleged that Iran was "heavily involved in trying to develop nuclear weapons enrichment, the enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade levels." He most recently visited the Middle East in an attempt to gather further support in isolating Iran.

It is this isolation and the ensuing sanctions that the Iranian government has faced, which has left Hayden clearly worried that Iran may well be on a mission to acquire a nuclear weapon. His argument -- quite a compelling one -- is, "Why would the Iranians be willing to pay the international tariff they appear willing to pay for what they're doing now if they did not have, at a minimum ... the desire to keep the option open to develop a nuclear weapon and, perhaps even more so, that they've already decided to do that?"

Clearly, the Iranian leadership, headed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has no desire to step back from its nuclear ambitions. The underlying question that then comes to mind is, why would Iran be willing to face such sanctions and international isolation to acquire a nuclear program with solely the intention of civilian use? No answer has ever been forthcoming from the Iranian authorities.

As pressure now grows on Iran over its nuclear weapons program and evidence comes to light over Iranian support for militias in Iraq, the international community heads into a prospect of further confrontation in the region. However, viewing confrontation as a certainty is a very dangerous mindset for the international community to accept.

It is for this reason that the search for a solution to what has been termed the "Iran Crisis" must be continued with greater haste. One option that has found itself back on the table is supporting Iran's opposition movement. The Iranian opposition movement led by the Mujahedeen e Khalq (MEK/PMOI) has gained greater prominence in recent years as it has hit the headlines for exposing Iran's nuclear program as well as Iran's meddling in Iraq.

The PMOI, believed by the regime to be the greatest threat to its existence, has found itself at the top of the agenda in many negotiations with Tehran. From Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent trip to Iraq to the nuclear incentives offered by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana over the years, this Iranian opposition group has found itself used as a political tool to convince Tehran to be a constructive influence on the region.

However, Iran's obsession and fear of this group has been noted by Western politicians as it becomes ever less likely that Tehran can be convinced to adhere to its nuclear obligations. One thing still stands in the way of this group being viewed as the legitimate opposition that could bring about democratic change in Iran. The group was listed as terrorist in the United Kingdom in 2001 in what Jack Straw, MP, later admitted was an act carried out at the behest of Tehran. As foreign secretary, Straw also urged the EU to ban the group.

However, the group's terror listing may well be quashed in the United Kingdom and the EU in coming weeks as the group awaits rulings from the UK Court of Appeal as well as the European Court of Justice. Having succeeded at a branch of the UK High Court in November 2007 and the European Court of First Instance in December 2006, the upcoming judgments are the culmination of a long process to gain legitimacy by the PMOI.

An end to the group's terror listing may well see it become a legitimate opposition group, which will offer the international community the option of internal democratic change. Such an option may well be the only prospect of avoiding further confrontation in the region.

(Mark Williams is a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Ceredigion and shadow Welsh affairs spokesman. Previously he was shadow education minister.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)