Did Iran Get What It Wants?
By Captain Ed on Iran
Captain's Quarters
The Associated Press reports that Iran has described the Bush offer to end the nuclear-proliferation standoff as "positive", while reports indicating that the US has promised to give Teheran the technology to build a light-water reactor have some worried that we may have given away the prize. Ali Larijani, Iran's nuclear negotiator, changed weeks of contentious Iranian rhetoric by lauding the "positive steps" taken by the Americans, while noting that areas of ambiguity need clearer definition:
<<< Iran and the United States had a rare moment of agreement Tuesday, using similar language to describe "positive steps" toward an accord on a package of incentives aimed at persuading Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment.
Diplomats said the incentives include a previously undisclosed offer of some U.S. nuclear technology on top of European help in building light-water nuclear reactors. Other incentives include allowing Iran to buy spare airplane parts and support for joining the World Trade Organization.
Tehran is under intense international pressure to accept the deal in exchange for putting on hold a uranium enrichment program that the West fears could lead to the creation of nuclear weapons.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said the proposals had "positive steps" but that talks were needed to clear up ambiguities. Iran promised to study the proposals seriously, but gave no timeframe for a response.
And Bush, using the same language, said Iran's initial response "sounds like a positive step."
"We will see if the Iranians take our offer seriously," the president said in Laredo, Texas. "The choice is theirs to make. I have said the United States will come and sit down at the table with them so long as they are willing to suspend their enrichment in a verifiable way." >>>
This marks the first time in months that anything positive has come from efforts to restart negotiations with the Iranians. Their initial reaction of hostility could indicate that Bush's offer of safer nuclear technology and an escape from sanctions took them by surprise. They may not have considered the possibility that an offer from the US could contain substantial progress towards their publicly stated goals, and seeing the offer after delivery by Javier Solana, the EU's foreign minister, might have momentarily stalled their momentum.
This is where we see whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (a) wanted a war, (b) desired better trade positioning, or (c) really wanted to switch to nuclear power instead of building refining capacity. After all, the Russians offered them something quite similar for the past several months. If Iran accepts this offer and a tight verification regime from the IAEA, then one might presume that the mullahcracy's goal all along was (b) and maybe (c). (They also may have some concerns about Russian nuclear assistance, given their poor track record.) If Ahmadinejad rejects this package outright, then obviously he pursued this to start a war.
Most likely, the Iranians will counterpropose an agreement that will attempt to allow them to continue uranium enrichment, which will put the ball back in Bush's court -- but not for long. For the moment at least, he has surprised the Western nations by agreeing to a substantial shift in American policy. They have no choice but to support the offer as it meets the UN Security Council resolutions, and any shift on their part will give Bush an opportunity to change his mind.
Bush managed to confound his allies and his enemies in one unexpected tactical shift. But is it the right offer to make?
Jon at QandO believes it is, and his explanation hits at the heart of the Western conundrum:
<<< I already see some people expressing disapproval of this and comparing it to the Agreed Framework, but I think this is far different. For one thing, we don’t have Jimmy Carter cowboying off to conduct his own brand of "Trust! But Verify?" free-lance, "direct to CNN" diplomacy. (which hamstrung US efforts to stop North Korea, and led to one Clinton cabinet member to call Carter a "treasonous prick")
First, it’s important to note that we don’t have a lot of good options. For a variety of very compelling reasons, we really don’t want to attack Iran. Certainly, we can overpower them in a conventional military sense, but they have quite a few asymmetric trumps cards...
Finally — and this is important — Iran has the legal right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program. If Iran insists upon exercising that right, there’s just not much we can legally do to stop them. The Non-Proliferation Treaty states...
*** Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty. ***
Iran is simply obliged not to pursue nuclear weapons. They have a legal right, which we have recognized, to acquire nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. >>>
While we want to keep Iran from gaining nuclear weapons because of their likely transfer to terrorists, we have based our opposition on the NPA. That document does give all signatories the right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology, and any attempt to stop it would constitute a violation on our part. Many in the US noted that as a signatory to the NPA, we should not have agreed to give India assistance on their domestic nuclear-energy production, making it more difficult to deny Iran the same right as a signatory.
Given this problem, the only real solution will be to offer the nuclear technology while retaining control of the nuclear fuel -- again, the Russian solution repackaged with our preferred technology with the trade assistance that only the US can provide. How difficult a sell will that be? Long-memoried readers will recall that John Kerry and John Edwards offered a similar solution -- as an opening bid! -- and got slammed during the election for that position. (Iran, as irascible as ever under Mohammed Khatami's rule, turned him down.) Using this as a last-ditch effort to contain Iranian nuclear ambitions will no doubt give Kerry reason to crow about this Bush "flip-flop". Members of his own party will likely oppose it just on the basis of the lack of trust in the frequently non-rational, anti-Semitic nature of the Iranian leadership.
I'm not sure that this offer will ever get accepted. It looks more like a final move to show that we would present as much flexibility as possible without giving up on the key goal of stopping Iranian uranium enrichment. In that sense, the offer is brilliant. If Iran accepts it outright along with a verification regime that ensures their compliance, it still gives us a trade-off that will put Iranian nuclear development off for enough time to hopefully see a more rational government replace the mullahcracy. Bush has positioned the US perfectly to either accept this diplomatic solution or to pursue tougher options with little difficulty.
captainsquartersblog.com
news.yahoo.com
qando.net
disarmament2.un.org
captainsquartersblog.com |
