TEHRAN - With the expiry of the 30-day
deadline set by the United Nations Security
Council for Iran to halt uranium-enrichment
activities on Friday, there remains just the
narrowest window of opportunity to resolve the
crisis.
A report by the UN watchdog, the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to be
submitted to the Security Council on Friday was
widely expected to state that, despite a formal
request from the council, Tehran has not provided
international inspectors with new information
about the country's nuclear program and has
increased, rather than
stopped, uranium-enrichment activities.
Officials from the United States, the
United Kingdom, France, Russia and China - the
five permanent members of the Security Council -
and Germany will meet in Paris on Tuesday to
discuss what, if any, punitive action to take
against Iran. Time, therefore, is of the essence
if the crisis is to be resolved diplomatically.
If the Western powers, led by the US,
adopt a tough posture and demand that sanctions be
imposed on Iran, or worse, launch a military
attack on its nuclear facilities, they will
strengthen the hands of the nuclear hawks who at
present constitute a minority in the Tehran
regime. The catastrophic consequences for the
entire Middle East, the world's most volatile
region, and the rest of the world don't need to be
spelled out.
On the other hand, if the
West explores the route of diplomacy and
negotiation, it could be rewarded with rich
dividends, including effective oversight of Iran's
nuclear activities and improvement in relations
with its government, which is keen on being
accepted as a responsible power.
On
Thursday, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad showed no
willingness to compromise. Speaking at a rally
broadcast on state television, he warned the US
and its European allies they would regret any
decision to "violate the rights of the Iranian
nation".
At this extraordinarily delicate
make-or-break moment, Iran has fashioned a
three-pronged approach to deal with the nuclear
crisis, which has steadily escalated since the
IAEA board of governors passed two resolutions
against it in September and February, and sent its
case to the Security Council.
First,
Tehran remains defiant that it will not sacrifice
its rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) to engage in peaceful activities,
including uranium enrichment for power generation.
It has threatened to "hide" its atomic program,
transfer nuclear technology to other countries and
cease cooperation with the IAEA, if the West takes
"harsh measures".
These threats have
emanated not just from cabinet ministers and
Ahmadinejad, often credited with harsh utterances,
but from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, who very rarely makes pronouncements on
such issues.
Second, the Iranian
government is sending out signals that it is keen
to reach a deal or compromise. Dr Hasan Rowhani, a
member of the Supreme National Security Council,
and Khamenei's nominee on it, has said that Iran
is prepared to suspend its uranium enrichment for
a short time. Iranian officials are also working
diplomatic channels to let it be known that Tehran
wants talks that will lead to a peaceful
resolution of the nuclear issue.
The third
prong of Iran's strategy is to reach out to its
neighbors, including some pro-American states in
the Persian Gulf region, and to try to persuade
them not to support a US military attack on Iran.
Recently, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani and
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani,
were in Kuwait and Bahrain respectively.
"Iran's current position is based on a
strong domestic consensus in favor of a civilian
nuclear program and of acquiring a degree of
mastery over nuclear technology, not in favor of
developing nuclear weapons or even a weapons
capability," said Professor Nasser Hadian-Jazy, an
international-relations and security-affairs
specialist at the University of Tehran.
"Most Iranian policymakers believe that
the gap between what Tehran wants and what
pragmatists in the West will concede on the
nuclear issue is not very wide, certainly not
unbridgeable. They would certainly like to avoid a
confrontation. Both sides know that the costs of a
confrontation would be unaffordably high.
Therefore, they can be realistically expected to
try to negotiate a compromise. One can only hope
the negotiations succeed," said Hadian-Jazy.
A likely compromise, say insiders who
insist on anonymity, would involve temporary
suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran and a
possible joint venture with Russia (and some other
states such as South Africa) to take Iran's
uranium hexafluoride gas out of the country and
enrich it elsewhere. Iranian scientists would have
access to the relevant facilities and technologies
in the joint effort. Iran would stick to its NPT
commitments and ratify the tough IAEA Additional
Protocol on an intrusive inspection regime.
In return, the West would recognize Iran
as a "normal" state, and give it security
guarantees and a package of economic incentives,
including access to enhanced gas- and
oil-production technologies.
Numerous
governmental and non-governmental experts said
there was fairly broad agreement that such a
compromise proposal could be negotiated. It is,
however, hard to verify this through public
statements. Media debate on the nuclear issue is
banned.
There seems to be very little
support for the idea that Iran should become a
nuclear weapons state like India or Pakistan. The
much-publicized picture of some young Iranians
dancing with joy after the official April 11
announcement that Iran had successfully enriched
uranium to 3.5% was "highly misleading", said a
member of the board of editors of a dissident
publication. "That sentiment is not widely shared.
There was no significant jubilation over Iran's
claimed nuclear prowess."
Many Iranians
are also skeptical of the claim that Iran has
achieved technological sophistication as regards
uranium enrichment. They believe that the Isfahan
and Natanz facilities are rudimentary. But not
much is independently known about them, thanks to
the media ban.
No tension or apprehension
was detectable in the streets of Iran on the eve
of the Security Council deadline. People went
about their business in bustling cities as if
unaware of the huge nuclear crisis.
Yet
Iranian policymakers seem to be acutely conscious
of what is at stake. "It would be fair to say that
they think Iran has much to lose from an overt
pursuit of nuclear weapons," said Ramin
Jehanbegloo, a political theorist in Tehran.
"Contrary to Western stereotypes, they are sober,
hard-nosed pragmatists, not ideologically driven.
They know that nuclear weapons will make Iran more
vulnerable and insecure, not more secure."
Iranian policymakers believe the country
has a strong hand, legally and politically,
without nuclear weapons. It is not in breach of
any international treaty or law. Iran hopes to win
a measure of international public sympathy if it
is unfairly targeted and cornered by the US and
its close allies. Therefore, Tehran is unlikely to
alter the status quo radically.
If
Washington does so by exercising the military
option, it will invite serious trouble in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and in the entire
Muslim world. As the Iran situation is delicately
poised, sobriety and wisdom are at a premium.
