THE ROVING EYE Iran knocks
Europe out By Pepe Escobar
TEHRAN - In the high-stakes nuclear poker
game between Iran and the EU-3 (Britain, France
and Germany), Tehran has decided to call the EU's
bluff and turn the game around.
On top of
it Ali Larijani, the new head of the Supreme
National Security Council - appointed by President
Mahmud Ahmadinejad - and now Iran's top nuclear
negotiator, stressed on Iranian TV that the
criticism expressed in Saturday's report by
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head
Mohammad ElBaradei was "neither legal nor
technical" and distorted by political motives.
("The nuclear issue is a national issue. They [a
reference to the EU-3, not the IAEA] should not
talk to Iranian people with bullying language.")
Larijani once again stressed that as a
signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), Iran had the right to develop the nuclear
fuel cycle for civilian purposes. Right on cue,
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi added
that "access to
peaceful nuclear technology
is our inalienable right and we will not forsake
such a right. The Isfahan issue is irrevocable."
This a reference to uranium conversion being
resumed at the Isfahan plant. According to
Larijani, "If the IAEA was seeking to resolve
Iran's nuclear issue, it could have already done
so by now."
Putin to the rescue?
The European view appears to be that Iran
now is trying to split the international community
by talking to other players like Italy, as well as
members of the Non-Aligned Movement , such as
India, Malaysia and South Africa. The fact is the
international community is already split on the
issue between the US and the EU-3 on one side, and
most of the developing world on the other. As much
as the EU-3 is accusing Iran of playing the 35
member countries of the IAEA Board of Governors
against each other, the US is exercising
tremendous pressure over these same countries to
refer Iran to the Security Council for possible
sanctions.
Former Iranian Foreign Minister
Ali Akbar Velayati, currently a key advisor on
foreign affairs to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, is quoted as saying that Iran now has
the upper hand - and that's the consensus in
Tehran. Velayati is a realist. If Iran is referred
to the Security Council, "They will obviously set
a deadline for Iran, and in the worst
circumstances we would have to expect sanctions."
Velayati thinks that both Russia and China may not
veto the move for sanctions, "but they will try to
moderate the Security Council's stances".
There are insistent rumors in diplomatic
circles in Tehran that Italian Prime Minister
Silvio Berlusconi has asked his close friend,
Russian President Vladimir Putin, to intervene as
the new broker of last resort - since the failure
of the EU-3 strategy is now being widely
acknowledged. Italy from the start wanted to be
part of the negotiating team. Berlusconi believes
that only Putin can bridge the gap between Western
Europe and Iran as he is - relatively - trusted by
both sides.
Russia said on Monday that it
opposed sending Iran's case to the Security
Council.
The showdown is when the
35-member IAEA board meets on September 19 in its
headquarters in Vienna. The US and the EU-3 know
that both Russia and China - with multiple
billion-dollar deals with Iran - would be inclined
to block any eventual Security Council sanctions.
Diplomats in Brussels realistically realize that
sanctions would not be considered at first: the
council instead would try hard to come up with a
long-term "constructive" solution.
Deal? What deal? The story of
the EU-3's mediation is a chronicle of a debacle
foretold. In a nutshell, Iran voluntarily agreed
under the Paris Agreement of November 2004 to
suspend uranium enrichment at Isfahan as part of
negotiations with the EU-3. The IAEA itself
recognized the move as "a voluntary, non-legally
binding, confidence-building measure".
Five months ago, Iran actually proposed to
freeze uranium enrichment but to keep a few
centrifuges (under severe IAEA inspections). The
EU-3 rejected the offer. Why? Because of
Washington. From the Bush administration's point
of view, Iran has the right to nothing - much less
to master parts of the fuel cycle.
Iranian
negotiators saw through the EU-3 strategy from the
start. They accused the EU-3 of trying to maintain
the suspension of uranium enrichment
"indefinitely" and at the same time obstructing
any significant development in the negotiations.
That was exactly the case, because Washington had
blocked any possibility of a compromise. Iran has
the right to work on a nuclear fuel cycle
according to the NPT, and it has the right to keep
at least a pilot enrichment program. In Tehran's
view, the EU-3, pressured by Washington, was in
fact trying to impose no uranium enrichment and no
reprocessing.
The EU-3 had nothing to
offer except a heavily spun "nuclear, commercial
and political package", as it was advertised in
Brussels. An iron rule in the package was for
Tehran to definitively renounce uranium
enrichment. For Tehran, conversion is not
enrichment, thus the restart of Isfahan's plant.
The EU-3 package was in fact a very
limited - and conditional - one. It offered a
guaranteed supply of fuel for Iran's civilian
reactors, as long as they were fully supervised by
the IAEA; an agreement (but only in principle) for
European companies to build a nuclear power
station besides the Russian-made Bushehr reactor,
but as long as Tehran allowed extremely intrusive
IAEA inspections (and even this wouldn't fly if
Washington actively blocked it); more trade
(including conditional access to the World Trade
Organization) and economic cooperation; sales of
Airbus planes; and vague support in terms of
"security cooperation" on energy matters, Iraq and
Afghanistan, as well as the fight against
terrorism and drug trafficking.
Last month
in Brussels, some European diplomats, off the
record, admitted to Asia Times Online that the
package was "an empty box of chocolates". But
"there is nothing else we can offer", a diplomat
said. "The Americans simply wouldn't let us." The
diplomats also confirmed that both France and
Germany were absolutely ready for a deal,
considering they want to invest heavily in Iran,
and want to close oil and gas agreements. The
problem was Britain. "We know," said officials in
Tehran, barely disguising their smiles.
Tehran was incensed not only by the terms
of the package but by the way it was presented - a
bureaucratic letter with no official signature by
any of the EU-3 foreign ministers. The conditional
offers were only on Europe's name, and did not
implicate the US. That was the last straw. Iran
called the EU-3's bluff and resumed uranium
conversion at Isfahan. That led to last Saturday's
IAEA report.
The report says many
important things. Crucially, ElBaradei
acknowledges that Iran is cooperating with the
IAEA. And he admits that results of extensive
analysis tend to support Iran's official statement
about the foreign origin (from Pakistan) of
uranium contamination.
ElBaradei also says
that Iran has been asked to provide more
information regarding its P-2 centrifuge program.
He says a final assessment of Iran's plutonium
research activities must await the results of more
analysis. He says that Iran is building a heavy
water research reactor at Arak (planned to start
in 2014) and a heavy water production plant at
Arak as well. He says Iran's heavy water reactor
program will be monitored by the IAEA.
But
ElBaradei also criticizes Iran for not reporting
to the IAEA all its experiments in uranium
enrichment, uranium conversion and plutonium
research. He adds, however, that Iran has agreed
to provide further supporting information and
documentation. He says that after two-and-a-half
years of intensive inspections and investigations
the IAEA is not yet in a position to clarify some
important outstanding issues; and he calls for
Iran's "full transparency". In essence: the tone
is "let's keep talking", not "let's shut the
door".
Courting India Larijani
insists that "we did not stop the talks, they [the
EU-3] did. We consider negotiations with every
country as useful. We have not hidden anything.
They must know that threats would not have any
effect on our national will."
Tehran's new
global diplomatic thrust is now evident. The
strategy insists on Iran's inalienable nuclear
rights according to the IAEA charter; stresses a
close, respectful cooperation with IAEA
inspectors; and actively courts support from
non-aligned countries like India, Malaysia and
South Africa (that's the spirit of Larijani's high
profile visit to India last week). As far as
Tehran is concerned, the EU-3 are now history.
Unless they table a realistic proposal.
Tehran stresses that both Israel and
Pakistan totally ignored the NPT and built their
own nuclear weapons, without giving any
explanation to the "international community". So
why should Iran be punished when it is actually
complying with the NPT?
The Isfahan plant
will keep working on uranium conversion. And
Tehran plans to resume uranium enrichment at
Natanz as well. There's nothing the EU-3 can do
about it. According to an Iranian diplomat, "The
IAEA of course can talk about their 'serious
concern' about nuclear activities in Isfahan and
Natanz, but they cannot use this legally as a
means to refer Iran to the UN Security Council."
Or can they?
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us
for information on sales, syndication and republishing
.)
