US dilemma as Iran's nuclear file reopens
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Amid growing momentum for direct United States-Iran dialogue, the new US
administration of President Barack Obama is poised to press ahead with the
multilateral approach as well in light of the meeting of the "Iran Six" nations
that was due to begin in Frankfurt, Germany, on Wednesday, to discuss the
Iranian nuclear standoff.
At the same time, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, in an exclusive
interview with the Japanese television network NHK, has stated that Iran needs
"greater details regarding American intentions". By all indications, Iran is
not alone and the US's European allies in particular, some of whom are
nervous
about a separate US-Iran deal, are also in dire need of better education about
Washington's "new strategy" toward Iran and the broader Middle East.
Ahead of the Frankfurt meeting, on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton held her first foreign meeting with her British and German counterparts
to "discuss Iran and Afghanistan". Britain and Germany, along with the United
States, France, China and Russia, comprise the "Iran Six" nations dealing with
that country's nuclear program, which some suspect is being used to develop
nuclear weapons.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is reportedly opposed to the
imposition of further sanctions against Iran and is in a row over this with
Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has openly expressed doubt that Obama's proposed
strategy of "dialogue without preconditions" can succeed.
Two rounds of United Nations sanctions have been imposed on Iran, as well as
unilateral ones by the US, over Tehran's uranium-enrichment program, which it
says it has the right to pursue under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to
which it is a signatory.
The dissension on Iran within Germany, highlighted by the impending Tehran
visit of former chancellor Gerhard Schroeder that is fully "coordinated" by the
German Foreign Ministry, reflects a larger division in the European Union (EU),
basically between those such as Britain and France favoring tough new action
against Iran and others, such as Spain, and to a lesser extent Germany, which
counsel more patient diplomacy before resorting to new sanctions.
As a result of these divisions, the EU has not imposed new sanctions on Iran,
although pressure to ban Iranian banks from doing business in EU territories is
building and would be a devastating blow to burgeoning Iran-EU trade if
implemented. Such a move would also be a blow to any prospect of Iran-North
Atlantic Treaty Organization cooperation on Afghanistan, where the convergence
of interests between Iran and the West is undeniable.
Thus, notwithstanding the potential debilitating effect of any anti-Iran
announcement by the "Iran Six" on such regional issues as Afghanistan, it is
highly unlikely that at this early stage in the Obama presidency there will be
any new direct action against Iran at the Frankfurt meet.
Instead, the net outcome will most likely be the recycling of previous demands
and the renewal of the June 2008 package of political and economic incentives
to Iran to give up its sensitive nuclear activities.
For its part, Iran has consistently demanded that the other side give serious
consideration to its own package of proposals that was unveiled in May 2008.
Iran has pledged to engage in "constructive cooperation" with the international
community to tackle global issues, including the threat of nuclear
proliferation.
There are, however, unintended consequences in diplomatic games and there is
the possibility that the two prongs of multilateral and bilateral diplomacy
envisioned by the Obama administration will not be able to reinforce each other
at all times.
The mere fact that the multilateral approach has preceded the bilateral one may
lead to premature new pressures on Iran as well as coercive ultimatums. This is
because the US might be constrained and even caged in by predetermined
positions already hammered out at multilateral forums. This makes it all the
more important for the US to avoid further boxing itself into hardline "Iran
Six" diplomacy that would erode Iranian confidence in any direct
Tehran-Washington dialogue.
That some European diplomats may deliberately torpedo the ship of the US's
bilateral approach toward Iran may be due to Europe's concerns "which include a
fear that the US might put itself first in line to tap Iran's petroleum if
talks succeed", to quote a recent editorial in the Christian Science Monitor.
[1]
Russia, too, may share this fear, as it would lose its monopoly of the Iran
nuclear market in the event there were a significant breakthrough as a result
of US-Iran dialogue. It would come as no surprise, then, if Moscow eased its
objections to ratcheting up UN sanctions against Iran, as such a maneuver to
short-circuit US-Iran diplomacy under the guise of going along with
Washington's script for action on Iran has its own protean values for the
Kremlin leaders. Moscow is keen on patching up with Washington in the aftermath
of the nasty gas dispute with Europe and the much nastier conflict in Georgia
last year.
There is consequently great concern in Tehran that Russia is once again ready
to "bargain with Washington over Iran", to paraphrase a Tehran political
expert. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has gone out of his way to declare
his commitment to work with the Obama administration on global issues,
including the "proliferation threat". Many Iranians are convinced that if
Washington's price is right, then the Russians will agree to postpone their
completion of the much-delayed nuclear power plant they are building at Bushehr
in Iran.
"We believe that Russia, irrespective of every pressure, will fulfill its
commitment to complete the Bushehr power plant," Iran's ambassador to Moscow,
Mahmoud Reza Sajjadi, has told a skeptical Iranian press. The media is awash
with complaints by ordinary Iranians as well as politicians about the 10-year
delay game by Russia over the plant.
Moscow is also not thrilled about the Iranian proposal for an international
consortium to enrich uranium on Iranian soil, in light of Russia's agreement
with Iran to provide nuclear fuel for Bushehr, which in turn gives Moscow a
strategic leverage with neighboring Iran.
There are strong objections in the West to the idea of an international
consortium, for entirely different reasons. These include concern that it would
lead to Iran's mastery of state-of-the-art enrichment technology, per a recent
article by American nuclear expert Stephen Rademaker. [2]
However, a former British diplomat, John Thomson, and a scientist at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, John Forden, have championed the idea of
such a consortium on the condition that sensitive technology would be kept in a
"black box". In a recent interview with the Iranian Fars news agency, Thomson
was quoted as stating, "By comparison with the continuance of this [present]
situation, an international consortium, albeit enriching on Iranian soil, is
preferable." [3]
Until now there has been no official US reaction to the idea of an
international consortium and the negative comments of Rademaker, a former
official in the George W Bush administration, give a rare glimpse on
Washington's thinking about this option.
But, Rademaker evades the Thomson/Forden option cited above, which relies on
existing arrangements in the US and Europe and which could be replicated in
Iran without too much difficulty.
The Obama administration could make huge headway in resolving the Iranian
nuclear impasse by pursuing good-faith direct negotiations with Iran. Under
this viable option, important details as well as other options, such as
enhanced monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency of Iran's
enrichment activities, could be fleshed out.
However, as stated above, the Obama administration must first take care to
avoid any hasty decisions in its multilateral approach that could in effect
checkmate the more promising bilateral approach.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New
Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry,
click here. His
latest book,
Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing
, October 23, 2008) is now available.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
