Nuclear showdown with Iran

Iran denounced the IAEA resolution as "a tool" to put them under pressure and vowed that they would not bend. Iran's Chief negotiator at the IAEA Cyrus Nasseri also warned that any attempt by the Western countries to take the issue to the UN Security Council would be "without any legal basis" and that any such move would be a "grave miscalculation".

The Western countries could not go for any tougher action against Iran as the latter has not in any way breached the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran is well within her rights under the treaty to undertake the uranium enrichment programme to develop nuclear power as an alternative energy source. Furthermore, Iran has also signed additional protocol to the NPT and made a pledge of sustained transparency. The IAEA's surveillance cameras are in place in Isfahan and it should be possible to detect any diversion of the enriched uranium for the purpose of making nuclear weapons.

Iran maintains that it has no desire to develop nuclear weapons, but the Western countries do not trust Iran on the ground that the latter had hid its uranium enrichment programme for 18 years. In fact, some dissident Iranian scientists had blown the whistle some two years ago alerting the Western countries. Since then the three-member EU team comprising Britain, Germany and France, have been negotiating with Iran and an interim agreement was signed in Paris last November pending conclusion of a long term agreement.

Iran, on its part, had voluntarily frozen all its nuclear activities.

The present crisis began about a month ago when Iran, after waiting for several months for a comprehensive EU proposal, decided to go for the resumption of the enrichment programme at the Isfahan centre and asked IAEA to remove the locks which were put earlier. Iran maintains that at the time of conclusion of interim agreement in Paris, the EU troika had assured them that its nuclear rights would be respected without any discrimination.

Tehran had accordingly sent a detailed proposal to EU last March incorporating elaborate provisions for expanded UN monitoring even beyond the scope of intrusive additional protocol to demonstrate the peaceful

nature of its nuclear programme Finally at the beginning of the month, the EU sent a proposal asking Tehran to abandon its nuclear programme and offered, in exchange, a package of economic, technological, political and security incentives. Iran termed the EU proposal as "unacceptable" as it did not meet their "minimum requirements". They alleged that instead of taking note of their concern, the EU, under pressure from Washington, went back on its earlier promise. Iran rejected the EU proposal of supplying them with nuclear fuel on a recycle basis as it would only make them permanently dependent on foreign nuclear sources.

Iran felt that while the EU countries had been freely using nuclear technology to meet their energy needs, it was not fair on their part to ask Iran to forfeit it existing rights under the NPT. The Isfahan project has resumed its operations but Iran has kept IAEA on board. It has so far been very careful in not crossing the red line which could provide justification for any military action against her.

Western countries maintain that Iran has one of the largest reserves of oil and gas and do not need any nuclear power to meet its energy needs. Iran asserts that its resources are dwindling fast and it needs to explore the nuclear option to meet its long term goals. Privately, the Iranian officials point out that when Shah had started the project in early seventies Iran had even bigger reserves and yet the western countries did not ask these questions. On the contrary, they were vying with each other to provide Shah's regime with the latest nuclear technology. It is obvious that after investing so much money and effort, no Iranian leader can afford to abandon this prestigious project.

After the recent Presidential elections Iran has in fact hardened its position. The stunning landslide election victory of relatively unknown conservative, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former Mayor of Tehran, over veteran politician and two-time President Rafsanjani marks consolidation of powers by the conservatives, and they now control all branches of the State.

Ironically, Washington's military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have immensely helped Iran and its conservative rulers. Their arch rival Saddam Hussein has been removed from power and, for the first time, their ideological ally the Shias who constitute majority in Iraq, are now in the driver's seat in Baghdad. Likewise, their other rivals, the Talebans and their cohorts Al-Qaeda, have been dislodged and are on the run. Lastly, the unprecedented rise in oil prices, mainly due to instability in the region caused by the US intervention, has given Iran huge windfall bonanza.

The newly elected Iranian President has just announced names of his cabinet members and they are mostly known conservatives. Replacement of pragmatic Hassan Rowhani by conservative Ali Larijani, as the chief nuclear negotiator also signals that Iran would be more unwilling to forsake its rights to nuclear technology.

What are the options before the EU troika to break the current deadlock? EU would like to put international pressure on Iran to bring it back from the current enrichment programme. United States, however, is advocating for tougher action against Iran including imposition of economic sanctions by the UN Security Council. President Bush at an interview with the Israeli television two days ago had even hinted at the possibility of use of force against Iran. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, however, quickly made a statement opposing use of force and underlined the need for resolution of the conflict through dialogue. Vast majority of Third World countries believe that any highhanded approach at this stage would further isolate Iran, as was the case with North Korea, and thus making resumption of dialogue even more difficult in future.

If the western countries decide to take the issue to the UN Security Council for imposition of comprehensive economic sanctions against Iran, it is not clear whether they can master support of other council members, particularly the developing countries.

Even if they do, China and Russia, who have established long term trade and economic ties with Tehran, could decide to veto in order to protect their national interests. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recently expressed his apprehension that this could in turn paralyze the Security Council.

Furthermore, United States had imposed its own economic sanctions against Iran more than ten years ago. So any fresh UN sanction would have no additional impact on them. However, EU countries are Iran's number one trading partner. They are largely dependent on Iran to meet their long-term energy requirements and, Iran provides a huge market for their industrialised goods. Any UN imposed sanction would surely seriously affect these mutually beneficial ties.

Washington is heavily bogged down in Iraq and any full scale military action by them against Iran looks unlikely, though a blitzkrieg aerial attack like the Israeli attack against Iraq in 1982 cannot be ruled out. However, unlike Iraq, Iran has several atomic centers scattered all over the country and it would be impossible to knock all of them down through aerial strikes. Even if the US succeeds, Iran can rebuild them within months since she has built them with her own technology and manpower. If any military action is launched against Iran despite these weighty considerations, it would further destabilise the region and beyond.

Given this complex scenario, the most viable option seems to be resumption of dialogue with Iran. For the past two years, the IAEA has been able to get substantial degree of cooperation from Iran. This process has to be sustained and expanded. Since Iran is agreeable to additional safeguards, the EU should encourage Iran to extend full cooperation to IAEA so that the latter may closely monitor the Iranian uranium enrichment programme and ensure that there is no diversion of enriched uranium towards making nuclear weapons.

One has to keep in mind that if Iran is pushed to a situation where it decides to leave the NPT regime like North Korea, then there will be no control on its nuclear programme. Now that the US intelligence agencies have revised their earlier assessment and pointed out that Iran is at least ten years away from making the bomb, it is all the more reason to pursue a constructive dialogue with Iran and persuade Iran to accept closer surveillance by IAEA. Tehran may not agree to give up its nuclear options but it has indicated its willingness to accept greater safeguards in return for full normalisation of ties with the West, especially the US.

Syed Muazzem Ali, a former Foreign Secretary, served as Bangladesh Ambassador to Iran from 1995-98.