Washington’s fixation with what it claims is Iran’s nuclear weapons program has only been matched with its experience in Iraq which underscores the danger of opting for force rather than dialogue as a means for dispute settlement.
Despite the public bravado on Iraq, the crushing costs in Iraq are bound to influence Washington’s handling of the Iran nuclear issue. There are other inhibiting factors: The problems of dealing with a nuclear program that is not completely “open”, the technical complexity of seeking to repeat Osirak strike and the deadly possibilities at Iran’s disposal in case the Americans or Israelis attack its nuclear plants.
The trigger for the latest crisis was the proposal of the European negotiating team (France, Germany and Britain) that offered Iran a guaranteed source of fuel for its civilian nuclear plants and other economic incentives in exchange for Tehran ceding the right to develop and control of the sensitive nuclear fuel-cycle technology that could be used to produce bombs.
As an NPT signatory, Iran has the right to make its own nuclear fuel while giving IAEA the authority to ensure that the enriched uranium is only for civilian power plants. And Iran has allowed IAEA access to its nuclear program.
Iran has responded harshly and swiftly to the E-3 proposal but not without leaving the door open for negotiations.
Tehran complained that the European offer “amounts to an insult on the Iranian nation for which the E-3 should apologize.” Subsequently Iran began the uranium conversion process, which was frozen for almost a year. IAEA responded by passing a resolution demanding that Iran halt all nuclear fuel work. Tehran has rejected the resolution upholding its right to develop the fuel cycle for civilian purposes.
Iran has conveyed its negotiating bottom line: It would not suspend work at the Isfahan plant again and would seek resuming uranium enrichment at its Natanz facility and that Iran also intends to retain its right as an NPT signatory to develop a full fuel nuclear cycle. But Iran’s simultaneous thrust for dialogue is also significant. Iran’s principle negotiator says, “We can reach a conclusion with a win-win situation defined for both sides ... We should try to solve the problem in a friendly way and our objective is still preserving the fuel cycle.” He added: “Natanz is a part of our fuel cycle and we insist on it. However, it should pass the channel of negotiations.” Iran’s Foreign Ministry says, “Europe’s behavior will heavily influence the decision.”
Washington’s concerns with Iran’s program are primarily political. They are a reflection of Israel’s concerns as well as its own fears that a future nuclear Iran could stave off US attempts at intimidation. Tehran knows the reason for the Middle East’s inability to resist US intimidation. To make matters worse, since the ’70s Iran-US relations have been terribly distrustful.
As for Washington’s allegations against Iran’s nuclear program, those are still not backed by credible and incontrovertible evidence.
However numerous factors prevent a free hand for the US in its dealings with Iraq.
The E-3 is for continuation of the dialogue, and against taking the matter to the UN Security Council. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said he wouldn’t support US military action against Iran.
Even if the matter goes to the Security Council, Chinese and Russians will veto sanctions. American commentators argue that the $65 a barrel price of oil will deter the international community from supporting sanctions against the world’s third largest oil producer. Already Iran’s chief delegate has suggested pushing world oil prices higher if the West tries to block its nuclear program.
Also the combined effect of stopping negotiations and imposing sanctions could be that Iran speeds up its nuclear program, as North Korea did.
War is no option. Iran is no Iraq; it is three times the size of Iraq. A country with its revolutionary zeal still intact, it can deal a tough blow to the global economy by interrupting supply of the 15 million barrels of oil that daily comes across the Gulf region. Bush knows force is no option. He told the Israeli television that his options include the use of force, but “only as a last resort.” Cyrus Nasseri, Iran’s chief delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN that European countries should “think twice” before taking any action that might be considered “coercive.”
“That would be a course of action that would lead to a situation where everyone would lose,” he said.
Iran is within its rights to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes provided it agrees to intrusive UN inspections. The nuclear program is a matter of national pride and no Iranian leader with any political sense would offer to give it up. To address the concerns regarding Iran taking the path to nuclear weapons, the dialogue is the only option available. The gains already accrued from dialogue must be further consolidated and IAEA must require Iran to fulfill its commitment of cooperating with IAEA by allowing it to strengthen its monitoring controls.
