New
signs of Iran nuclear
flexibility By Kaveh L
Afrasiabi
In a sign of new Iranian
flexibility over on-going nuclear negotiations, a
top Iranian official has revealed that Tehran is
willing to consider a cap on 5% uranium enrichment
and adopt the intrusive Additional Protocol of the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty provided that
sanctions on Iran are dropped.
An Iranian
official who told this author on the
condition of anonymity also indicated that Iran
has received and is seriously considering an
official US request for a telephone hotline in
respect to potential accidents in Persian Gulf,
and may
consent to an "incident at
sea agreement" to demonstrate Iran's intention to
de-escalate regional tensions.
Representatives of the "5 +1" nations (ie,
UN Security Council's permanent members plus
Germany) met on the sideline of the General
Assembly summit last week and agreed to hold
another round of multilateral talks with Iran.
This comes at a time of increased Israeli pressure
to force the issue into a military scenario, in
light of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's UN
speech, where he used a cartoon image of a ticking
bomb to draw a "red line" on 90% Iranian
enrichment - much to the surprise of many pundits
in Iran and abroad who have interpreted this as a
"green light" for Iranian enrichment below that
line.
Whether or not that was Netanyahu's
intention, his explicit reference to 90%
enrichment inevitably undermines his war
salesmanship and the related rationale that war is
imminent unless the West imposes more crippling
sanctions on Iran. In fact, given the fact that
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has
confirmed that Iran's enrichment is confined to
below 20% and Iran's atomic organization chief,
Fereydoun Abbasi, has told the IAEA that Iran has
no intention of going beyond 20%, Netanyahu is now
hard-pressed to find too many converts in the
global community to back his warmongering diatribe
against Iran.
A full-scale economic war is
presently raging against Iran, however. Even
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has publicly
connected the country's economic woes, above all
the downward spiral of the currency, the rial, to
the impact of sanctions. Naturally, Tehran is
seeking damage control and hoping to find an
honorable solution to the nuclear standoff that
would result in a mutually acceptable formula.
In this context, Iran's foreign minister,
Salehi, told the audience at the Council on
Foreign Relations and other US think tanks that
Iran is willing to "institutionalize" the Supreme
Leader's religious edict, or fatwa, against
nuclear weapons by registering it at the United
Nations and thus provide further guarantee
regarding Iran's peaceful nuclear intentions. "We
are willing to put in place further mechanisms,"
Salehi stated, alluding to both the Additional
Protocol and the subsidiary agreement with the
IAEA (that Iran has so far refused to accept).
Iran signed the Additional Protocol of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003 and worked
with IAEA inspectors in 2003 and 2005, but the
protocol - which enables intrusive monitoring and
inspections of nuclear facilities - is still not
in force.
The question is, of course,
whether or not the US-led Western coalition is
willing to reciprocate Iran's conciliatory offers
or will they continue with their 'maximalist'
demands for a total suspension of Iran's
enrichment program, which is neither in line with
the articles of the NPT, nor even supported by a
growing chorus of expert opinion in the West that
warns of the dire consequences of a war with Iran?
The answer must await the result of the
November US presidential elections. If President
Barack Obama wins re-election, he will enjoy a
freer hand than during his first term to explore a
viable "Iran package" that genuinely seeks a
breakthrough with Iran. This is all the more
important because of approaching US deadline to
exit from Afghanistan, which remains highly
unstable, not to mention Iraq's dangerous
instability. "What is certain is that without
having good relations with Iran, the US finds it
harder to pursue its interests in the region,"
Salehi said in New York.
Incident at
sea agreement To open a caveat here, this
author published a letter in New York Times four
years ago on this subject, worth quoting:
"The near confrontation between the
United States Navy and Iran's Revolutionary
Guards highlights the need for reliable
mechanisms to alleviate tensions and prevent
unwanted clashes in the volatile region.
We should learn from the Cold War's
incidents-at-sea agreement between the two
superpowers. A similar agreement between the
United States and Iran is called for,
stipulating advanced notice on military
maneuvers; assistance in disaster management at
sea; and possibly new communication links and
improvements in the present interactions between
the two navies.
In light of their shared
interests in Iraq and Afghanistan, and against
Wahhabi terrorism, the United States and Iran
should explore confidence-building measures and
a more comprehensive security dialogue beyond
Iraq's security.
Unfortunately, the
White House's demonization of Iran, overlooking
Iran's stability role in the region, is a recipe
for disaster." [1]
Both this letter
and a longer policy paper on the same subject
prepared by this author and submitted to Iran and
US policymakers at the time received their
attention and I was subsequently informed that
President Ahmadinejad has no objection to such an
agreement as long as it is not "indefinite but
rather time-specific."
This is in light of
Iran's aversion toward indefinite US military
presence in Persian Gulf and its public stance
demanding the departure of all foreign forces from
the region. Recently, with the US and other
Western powers holding naval drills in Persian
Gulf close to Iran's shores, Iran's sensitivity to
foreign military presence has actually grown and,
yet, Tehran is still willing to consider an
"incident at sea" agreement with the US in order
to avoid an accidental war in Persian Gulf.
But, by all indications, the window of
opportunity to break some ice in US-Iran relations
is closing, principally as a result of the tough
sanctions that are hurting average Iranians and
may soon spur a "hard power" reaction by Iran in
the region, to punish those who are punishing both
the government and the population indiscriminately
under the guise of "counter-proliferation." In
essence, this means that despite all the talk of
"US-Iran commonalities," the gap could well widen
considerably in the coming months if the West
continues its relentless economic warfare against
Iran.
Lessons for the peace
movement A concluding word is for all the
anti-war activists nowadays marching with the
placards that read "No War With Iran": It is time
to upgrade to "No MORE War With Iran." For the
fact is that the ensemble of sanctions,
cyberwarfare, murder of Iranian scientists,
de-listing a known terrorist group committed to
violent overthrow of the Islamic Republic, and so
on, reflect a full-fledged war against Iran, even
though no bombs have dropped on Iran yet. The
peace movement needs to catch up with the modalities of
modern warfare and revise its slogans accordingly,
that is for sure.
Notes: 1. Incident
at Sea, New York Times, January 11, '2008.
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
