TMCnet News
Iran's tricky nuclear diplomacy(Economist.com Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)World powers meet once more to discuss how to handle Iran's nuclear ambitions on Monday, January 30th, and again on Thursday, February 2nd. The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency may refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council, despite Iranian claims that it may reconsider a once-rejected Russian compromise SOMEHOW, Iran always manages to escape. For several years, western countries have suspected that the Islamic country has been developing nuclear weapons, and for just as long Iran's falsehoods, evasions and hard-nosed negotiating have fed those suspicions. And yet, every time it seems Iran might face consequences, it produces yet another shift in its position. With Iran under threat of being hauled before the Security Council history seems to be repeating itself. The catalyst for the latest crisis has been the breakdown in Iran's dealings with the EU3 of Britain, France and Germany over work on its nuclear programme. Iran insists that it wants only nuclear power, not weapons. Nobody believes that. Though America and Israel have been itching to take firm action, for the past few years it has been left to Europeans to proceed with diplomatic measures: a combination of inducements and rebukes that saw Iran's domestic programme suspended for two years. That ended decisively earlier this month when Iran's hardline government said it would break United Nations seals on its pilot enrichment plant at Natanz, and resume research there. Dismayed Europeans announced that this was a red line that must not be crossed, but Iran continued nonetheless. This snapped the good European cops' patience and aligned them closer to the bad cop across the Atlantic. The prospects of Iran being referred to the UN Security Council, to face possible sanctions, seemed to be rising. The five permanent members of the council (America, Russia, China, Britain and France) plus Germany will gather on Monday, January 30th, to discuss Iran, before a meeting on February 2nd of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It had seemed increasingly likely that the powers would use the latter meeting to push for Security Council referral. This can be done with a simple majority vote. But the Iranians are doing all they can to muddy the water. Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, had earlier offered to enrich nuclear fuel in Russia on Iran's behalf, thus keeping potential bomb-making enrichment from going on in the Islamic Republic. The Iranians were first cool, insisting on their right, under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to complete the full nuclear fuel cycle. Then on Thursday, January 26th, Iran's top nuclear envoy Ali Larijanitouring Russia and Chinacalled the Russian idea useful and worthy of further discussion. China's foreign ministry promptly stated his country's opposition to impulsively using sanctions or threat of sanctions to solve problems. But a day later Iran flip-flopped again. Mr Larijani once more called the Russian proposal inadequate. China and Russia, nuclear powers themselves, have no wish to see Iran go nuclear (which could trigger moves towards nuclear-power status by other Middle-Eastern powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, closer to Russia than the former superpower would like). But both have extensive energy interests in Iran. Russia has been helping to build Iran's civilian reactor in Bushehr, and China is hungry for energy supplies, such as Iranian oil. The outcome of Monday's meeting of the permanent five and Germany is now clouded. Iran's contradictory statements about the Russian plan was enough to earn encouraging comments from Germany (which holds one of the Security Council's temporary seats), Mohammed ElBaradei (the IAEA's head) and even from George Bush. The negotiators may now have a tough time keeping the pressure on Iran, given Russian and Chinese opposition to sanctions. Throwing chaff But none should be convinced that Iran has suddenly changed its ways. The Iranians are doing nothing but trying to throw up chaff so that they are not referred to the Security Council and people shouldn't let them get away with it, warns America's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. Iran's newish president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a religious fundamentalist, has said nothing to reassure outsiders. He repeatedly denies the Holocaust and has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. He has asked Iranians to pray for the coming of the Mahdi, or 12th holy imam of Shia Islam, who will destroy God's enemies. On a more worldly level, Mr Ahmadinejad seems untroubled by any threat of sanctions. He notes that pulling Iran's oil off the world marketwhen prices are already well above $60 a barrelwould cause pain to oil importers as well as to Iran. His government promises that a referral to the Security Council will immediately end all voluntary cooperation with the IAEA, while Iran will move from mere research at Natanz to full-scale enrichment. Such aggressive talk helps ramp up the tension over the nuclear issue. Iran's diplomats then seek ways out before the world takes action. With Iran's latestif contradictorystatements about the Russian proposal, the chances of sanctions may have diminished. Even if they should come, they are likely to take weak forms such as travel bans and freezes on Iranian assets abroad, rather than comprehensive trade sanctions. Instead some are once again murmuring about military action. Ehud Olmert, the acting prime minister of Israel since Ariel Sharon's sudden stroke, has warned that Iran must not gain nuclear weapons under any circumstances. The head of Israel's air force, asked how far he would go to stop Iran's nukes, has joked two thousand kilometres. But air strikes on Iran are risky; they may only delay, rather than eliminate, Iran's programme, since facilities may be scattered and hidden throughout the country. And Iran would surely retaliate with terrorism in Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan. |