 |
Schizophrenic Nuclear Politics |
 |
In recent weeks there have been several contradictory signals regarding Iran’s nuclear issue with the UN. On the one hand, there was a new package of incentives for Iran by the Iran-6 group of nations composed of Britain, France,Germany, Russia, China and the United States. On the other hand there have been fresh threats of sanctions by Bush and Brown, followed by some serious sabre rattling from Israel.
This was in turn followed by a threat of resignation by the Chief of the IAEA in case Iran were attacked because “I don’t believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time … it would make me unable to continue my work,”. Al Baradei also warned that any such an attack on Iran would turn the region into a ‘fireball’.
The picture is quite confusing, and in the absence of real transparency from any side, one is left with pure speculation. So what ‘facts’ can we decipher from the situation?
The new package of incentives:
A quick search through various news sources reveals that the package is comprehensive and far reaching.
Nuclear energy:
The package apparently does not require a halt to enrichment, but a freeze at the current levels for 6 weeks. In other words, Iran is being asked not to expand its capacity beyond current levels of enrichment until a full suspension is agreed in direct return for concrete incentives such as agreement on building a light water reactor based on state-of-the-art technology as well as legally binding guarantees for nuclear fuel supplies. Support is also offered for research and development in nuclear energy “as international confidence is gradually restored” and help in managing its spent fuel and radioactive waste. This actually means that Iran can continue with enrichment once ‘confidence’ is restored. Despite the senseless insistence on ‘full suspension’ these constitute a far-reaching concession by the Iran-6.
Political concessions:
This is the most surprising of the lot. The package offers support for Iran in playing an important and constructive role in international affairs. It would meet Iranian demands for cooperation “on non-proliferation, regional security and stabilization issues” as well as a conference on Middle East security issues. It says that a solution to Iran’s nuclear issue would contribute to “realizing the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery,” This is a clear reference to dealing with Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
Trade:
The package also calls for moves toward normalizing Iran’s trade and economic ties with the rest of the world by helping integrateTehran into “international structures, including the World Trade Organization.” It also proposed the possible removal of restrictions on manufacturers exporting aircraft to Iran.
Agriculture:
It calls for helping Iran become fully self-sufficient in food through cooperation in modern technology and proposed civilian projects in environmental protection, infrastructure, science and technology.
The package also calls for helping Iranians take courses in areas like civil engineering, agriculture and environmental studies, and would also help Iran develop capacities to respond to disasters like earthquakes and other emergencies.
Iran’s own offer of unconditional talks
A few weeks before the new offer was presented, Iran presented its own package to the Iran-6 and the UN. The key element of this package was a regional consortium for uranium enrichment to be built in Iran in collaboration with international agencies and interested parties. This would be staffed by international experts and constantly monitored by them and the IAEA.
Iran’s package also took a comprehensive approach to regional security and foresaw a key role for Iran in future regional negotiations.
So what is the problem?
The problem has been that negotiations with the US and the Europeans have usually ended in a u-turn by the US as soon as the parties got close to agreement.
The last time Iran suspended its enrichment activities, the EU and the US reneged on their commitments in 2005. The US insisted on a permanent suspension of enrichment, and Iran withdrew its cooperation after a 2-year suspension period.
In early 2005, officials from the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency studied the idea of placing an enrichment facility inside Iran, but the US blocked the idea.
In the same year, a proposal by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to end the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program was also rejected by the Bush administration. The proposal argued for a dramatic shift in U.S.policy to help build an internationally run enrichment facility inside Iran to replace its current facilities rather than trying to halt Iran’s efforts to enrich uranium.
So while the Iran-6 make much noise about a ‘lack of confidence’, the problem is actually as much the other way.
Speculation
At the same time as the Iran-6 have made some big concessions, in front of the cameras we have Bush and Brown threatening more sanctions and the Israelis threatening war. What could explain this schizophrenia?
One possibility is that this is a tactic to undermine the process once again. They could be trying to provoke Iran into confrontation. This does not really make sense because neither the UK nor the US is in a position to engage in conflict. Israel on the other hand is being heavily sidelined by this potential agreement. Could this also be the reason for Israel’s frantic peace-making with Hamas, Syria and perhaps also Hezbollah at this juncture?
Another likelihood is that they are trying to save face after years of confrontation when Iran is on the verge of being invited back into the fold. Whatever the outcome, Iran cannot be allowed to look like the winner in this. Rather, Iran should look like it capitulated while in fact the Project for the New American Century is in full retreat.
Some relevant IAEA Reports for those interested:
Recommendation: Best to start with the earliest reports first in order to get a better picture of the chronology of events. A number of the issues were fully dealt with in earlier reports and are not mentioned in the later ones (e.g. traces of weapons grade plutonium found on equipment imported from Pakistan) because the IAEA was satisfied with Iran’s responses to these questions.
Niloufar Parsi is an Iranian-born graduate of Manchester University in the field of Development Studies. She has spent most of her professional life working with various development agencies globally, and is a keen political commentator under her chosen pseudonym.
But, of course. Animosity towards Iran is Israel’s only guaranty of unwavering US support for years to come. Hence AIPAC’s push for war.
“Israel on the other hand is being heavily sidelined by this potential agreement”.