|
|||||
|
THE Bush administration, which has until recently breathed fire and brimstone on Iran for its alleged proliferation activities changed tack suddenly in the first week of June. Much to the relief of the international community, there are now indications that the United States and Iran may soon start direct talks. Teheran has been stressing for a long time that the only way to resolve the outstanding differences between the two countries is through direct talks. Former President of Iran Mohammed Khatami, during his two terms in office, had tried his best to initiate a dialogue process. All his efforts were spurned by Washington.
His successor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite his reputation as a hardline Islamist, also proposed direct dialogue as a way out of the impasse. Ahmadinejad wrote a letter to his U.S. counterpart in May highlighting the need for dialogue without preconditions. The Bush administration ignored the offer at that time. Instead, the talk in Washington was about the imminence of a military confrontation with Teheran on the nuclear issue. In the last week of May, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave the latest of several ultimatums to Iran "to give up the pursuit of nuclear power" or face the consequences. She threatened to exert "greater pressure on Iranians through sanctions and other measures through the United Nations Security Council and, if necessary, with like-minded states outside of the Security Council". The ever-belligerent U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, had ruled out the possibility of Washington ever having diplomatic contacts with a "terrorist" state like Iran. "No [uranium] enrichment in Iran is permissible," Bolton told the U.N. in March.
Behind the flurry of hardline statements by top officials, the Bush administration was quietly preparing to backtrack. Finding itself isolated on the Iran issue, Washington agreed to the face-saving proposals put forward by the European Union to defuse the crisis. The EU-3 - France, the United Kingdom and Germany - had signalled strongly to the U.S. that they would not countenance the use of force at this juncture to resolve the nuclear issue. Former U.K. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had earlier in the year said that war with Iran on the nuclear issue was "inconceivable". The E.U. wanted the U.S. to support its initiative of offering generous incentives to coax Iran into suspending its uranium enrichment programme.
Russia and China had also made it clear to the U.S. and the E.U. that under no circumstances would they let U.N. Security Council impose economic sanctions on Iran on the "uranium enrichment issue". Moscow and Beijing also made it clear that they would not countenance an Iraq-like strategy vis-a-vis Iran. The Bush administration had used the Security Council's indecision on Iraq as a pretext to launch its illegal war on the country. To avoid being isolated completely on the issue, Washington reluctantly agreed to join the negotiating table along with the E.U., China, Russia and Iran. If there is a diplomatic breakthrough, then it will be for the first time in more than 27 years that the U.S. and Iran will be talking to each other.
Javier Solana, the E.U. Foreign Policy Chief, was in Teheran in the first week of June with a "package of incentives". He was given a warm welcome by Iranian officials. The incentives on offer to Iran include the sale of European-built light-water nuclear reactors. Washington has offered sophisticated nuclear technology of its own. There is a lot of money to be made by Western companies in Iran's civilian nuclear power sector. This is the first time the U.S. has offered "dual use" nuclear technology. The Bush administration has also indicated that it is considering the lifting of some of the economic sanctions on Iran. As a first step, it has offered to sell spare parts which Iran desperately needs for its ageing civilian and military air transport. The planes were purchased during the rule of the late Shah of Iran. If a nuclear deal between Iran and the West materialises, Iran will also be allowed to purchase civilian passenger planes from European manufacturers such as Airbus Industrie. The Bush administration said it would back Iran's entry in the World Trade Organisation if the stand-off was resolved.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said that some of the points in the latest proposals were "positive" but more time was needed to sort out some of the "ambiguities". Iranian officials have indicated that they would go through the proposals carefully and take their time to formulate the final response. Condoleezza Rice has said that an answer from Iran should come "within weeks not months". Interestingly, the latest E.U. proposals have not demanded the permanent scrapping of Iran's uranium enrichment programme. The demand is only for a temporary suspension. Two earlier initiatives by the E.U. and Russia had called upon Iran to permanently give up its nuclear enrichment programme.
Solana, during his visit to Teheran, also "carried a message" about the extremely negative consequences for Iran if the E.U. offer was not taken seriously. Solana did not explicitly spell out the threats against Teheran. Western diplomats have however let it be known that they include the possibility of U.N. sanctions, a travel ban on prominent Iranian political personalities and officials, and a freezing of Iranian assets abroad. Russia and China continue to express their reluctance to back U.N. sanctions on Iran in case it refuses to halt its uranium enrichment programme.
Senior Iranian officials have been indicating for some time that they are willing to be flexible on the issue. Hassan Rohani, formerly Iran's top nuclear negotiator and currently the senior policy adviser to the Supreme Spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recently said that Iran was prepared to negotiate "the scope and timing of its industrial-scale uranium enrichment" and would consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provided for intrusive snap inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Many knowledgeable Iran-watchers are of the view that the country's nuclear policy is under the overall supervision of the Spiritual Leader. David Albright of the Institute of Science and International Security, a Washington-based think tank, said recently that Iran's nuclear policy is run by the Supreme National Security Council, which is "directly under the Supreme Leader". Khamenei had issued a "fatwa" against nuclear weapons. He has stressed on several occasions that it is "un-Islamic" for a country to possess nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
According to many commentators, the Supreme Leader is convinced that Iran's security and status as a regional power could be endangered by unfettered American hostility. Ayatollah Khamenei, in a speech in 1998, had said that Iran should only negotiate with the U.S. from a position of strength. The Iranian leadership has calculated that the present political and security situation in the region is in Iran's favour. Iran is today in a key position in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon. If Teheran wishes, it can further complicate matters for the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Former Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, who is close to the Spiritual Leader, stated recently that Iran "at no time until now had such powerful means of haggling". He mentioned specifically Iran's influence in Iraq and Palestine in this context. "Haggle" is a translation for a Persian word for negotiations. Iran is today haggling to extract guarantees on its nuclear programme. In 2003, Iran proposed through diplomatic back-channels to the U.S. its willingness to recognise the U.S.' predominance in the region with the proviso that Iran's legitimate interests and defence capacity should be acknowledged.
Teheran is continuing to emphasise that "no incentive would be sufficient to compromise Iran's inalienable right to all aspects of peaceful nuclear technology". The final declaration adopted at the Non-aligned Movement Foreign Ministers' meet in Kuala Lumpur on May 30 "reaffirmed" Teheran's right. The declaration said that the choices and decisions made by states "in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear technology and its fuel cycle policies must be respected" and that "any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities constitutes a grave violation of international law".
Printer friendly
page
|
