NOt much progress had been made on the Iranian nuclear issue. That was yesterday’s assessment from Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. This seeming pessimism, however, belies some real and extremely encouraging developments. Negotiations are in fact taking place — and, more importantly, in a positive atmosphere. It is quite clear that everyone directly involved — Iran, the US, the Europeans, Russia, China, the UN and the IAEA — wants a diplomatic solution and is working to ensure that such a solution be found.
The package of incentives from the five permanent UN Security Council members, plus Germany, in return for a suspension of uranium enrichment has certainly proved attractive to the Iranians. Understandably so. The freedom to buy spare parts for civilian aircraft in the US, the lifting of restrictions on the use of US technology in agriculture, support for Iranian membership of the World Trade Organization and the supply of light water nuclear reactors and enriched fuel are quite a coup for Tehran. Yet it could easily have rejected them and stuck to its guns. But to what end? All that Tehran would have achieved would have been international condemnation and sanctions in one form or another. By effectively accepting the offer as a basis for negotiations, albeit with some changes, Iran could end up with not only the nuclear energy it requires, but it could also have equipment it has long been denied plus the world’s goodwill. It is a win-win situation. It has not quite happened; it is all still in the bargaining stage but the fact that the two sides have something to bargain about suggests a deal can be reached.
The positive atmosphere in which the negotiations are now taking place — further enhanced by Tehran’s suspension of nuclear enrichment while negotiations continue — is not solely due to an attractive offer. There is pragmatism in Iran. Unlike North Korea, it cares about its image in the world; it wants to be seen as acting responsibly. Also instrumental in developing that pragmatism has been the Muslim world. Last month, at the D-8 summit in Bali of the eight “developing” Muslim nations (Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Malaysia), Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was made fully aware that all of them supported a negotiated settlement, and not a confrontation. This wider Muslim effort to provide backing for a deal and help resolve tensions which could spread throughout the region was also in evidence this week in the visit to Tehran by Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal. His stated hope afterward of a speedy resolution of the crisis may appear at odds with Mohamed El-Baradei’s assessment but, given that positive tones are coming from the various negotiating parties, there is no reason why a deal should not be concluded and the sooner the better. The gap between Iran and the international community has narrowed, is narrowing and, hopefully, will soon narrow to a point at which it can and will be bridged.
