With U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at his side, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw announced Tuesday that a high-level EU-3 delegation would meet with Iranian negotiators (including Hassan Rowhani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council) on May 23, probably in Paris, to attempt to resolve the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program, CNN reported.[1] -- Western powers held the threat of referral to the U.N. Security Council over Iran’s head, but in fact “Sweeping sanctions, including restrictions on Iranian oil, would have a scant chance of being adopted,” said diplomats at the U.N., according to IranMania.[2] -- The New York Times quoted an unnamed “top European diplomat” who said that Iran’s willingness to negotiate once again showed that “Iran had indeed changed its mind, even at the expense of looking like it was backing down,” but added that this was not necessarily the case: “Many experts say that the switches in position reflect a debate between forces perceived as more secular-oriented leaders and hard-liners who are believed to reside among Iran's circle of high-ranking clerics.”[3] -- Reuters emphasized that the U.S. and the Europeans were solidly united in their approach to the Iranian crisis: “We've come to a united approach in dealing with Iran,” said a top U.S. diplomat (also unnamed), and Jack Straw said at Tuesday’s news conference: “There were many people around who were trying to say this would be another occasion for a, quote, ‘split,’ between Europe and America and so on. Those people are being confounded.”[4] -- But in its report, Associated Press said China was likely to prevent unified U.N. action: “China, which has veto power [in the U.N. Security Council], is opposed in principle to sanctions to resolve disputes among nations.”[5] -- Studiously unmentioned in these articles, as ususal, is Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, and the fact that pressures from Israel are a key factor in how the crisis unfolds. -- In Wednesday’s Haaretz, however, Avner Cohen, author of a book entitled Israel and the Bomb, characterized as “grossly misleading” the implicit assumptions of the above stories.[6] -- According to Cohen, “a deterministic outlook and discourse based on a technological point of no return . . . is derived from a distorted idea of the dynamics of a national nuclear development program -- a process that at the start is unclear, indecisive and highly hedgy,” as Israel should know better than anyone, since “Israel is the country that invented and bequeathed to the world the concept of nuclear ambiguity.” -- Thus “there is more than a smidgen of irony that the Israeli discourse about the Iranian nuclear program is predicated on the assumption that Iran's long-term strategic and technological ambitions are fixed, clear and well-defined.” ...
1.
U.S.
NEW BID TO BREAK IRAN NUKE IMPASSE
CNN
May 18, 2005
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/05/17/iran.nukes/
WASHINGTON -- British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his counterparts from France and Germany will meet an Iranian delegation next week to try to break the impasse over Tehran's nuclear program, Straw said Tuesday. "I hope, but I can't predict, that the negotiations at the beginning of next week will be fruitful," Straw told reporters at a joint news conference with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
"I would hope that the Iranians understand that this is their chance," Rice said.
"They ought to take it and get back on the good side of the international community."
Straw said the talks would most likely take place in Paris, France and would include German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier and a delegation from Iran.
Earlier, Tehran announced it would send Hassan Rowhani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, to the May 23 talks.
Rice said the United States supporteds the "EU-3" negotiations and that all sides had come to a united approach in dealing with Tehran.
She said she hoped Iran would seize the moment and "live up to their international obligations not to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of civilian nuclear power."
"I think we will see what comes next," Rice said. "We've obviously got the (United Nations) Security Council as an option for the international community. We've made that clear."
Straw said he hoped an agreement couldn be reached before that occurs: "The whole purpose of the negotiations with Iran is to try and avoid that circumstance."
Asked what Britain would do if the United States pushed for the Iran matter to go before the U.N. Security Council, Straw said, "Your circumstance is entirely hypothetical, and I'm quite clear it won't arise."
In Tehran, the country's state-run media quoted Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi as saying, "We agreed to hold this round of talks because the Europeans themselves had requested."
"We hope to reach a formula which will guarantee our rights," he said.
Kharrazi added that Iran would pursue what it saw as its right to obtain atomic technology -- which it insists is for peaceful purposes -- and would restart its temporarily frozen plutonium enrichment program if this round of talks failed to produce an agreement.
Europe and the United States fear Iran's nuclear programs will result in nuclear weapons and want Tehran to permanently stop the enrichment programs that can create weapons grade plutonium.
Britain, France and Germany -- representing the European Union -- began talks with Tehran two years ago, and Iran agreed last year to freeze its enrichment activities. The United States refuses to participate, but has not objected to the European talks.
2.
Current Affairs
ANTI-IRAN SANCTIONS DOUBTFUL: U.N. DIPLOMAT
IranMania
May 18, 2005
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=31915&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
LONDON -- There is no certainty the U.N. Security Council would back a United States or European request to punish Iran if Tehran resumed work on what Washington fears is part of a nuclear weapons program, U.N. diplomats said on Monday.
The George W. Bush administration and some European Union countries are expected to ask the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the 15-nation council for possible sanctions if it resumes sensitive nuclear activities it agreed to suspend last November, Reuters reported.
But even with a referral of the case by the Vienna-based U.N. nuclear watchdog, it was not clear the council would adopt sanctions, council diplomats and analysts said.
Some council members, including China and Russia, were likely to strongly question the need for sanctions if not block them, and others would be in no hurry to act, they said.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan sounded a similar cautionary note, saying in an interview published on Monday that a council deadlock could embolden North Korea and others.
“I think were the Iran nuclear issue to be referred to the council, the members would have to be keenly aware that any decision they make will set a precedent. Their action or inaction will have a great impact on future cases and on our efforts to promote nuclear nonproliferation,“ Annan said.
Referring Iran to the council would be an affront, council diplomats said. They would expect any push for sanctions to be gradual, probably preceded by a proposal for a verbal condemnation of Iran to test the waters.
If there were support for sanctions, targeted penalties would be considered such as travel bans or asset freezes on individual Iranian officials, they said. Sweeping sanctions, including restrictions on Iranian oil, would have a scant chance of being adopted, the diplomats said.
Tehran said on Monday it would give EU negotiators a last chance to strike a deal before making good on its plan to resume work related to uranium enrichment for generating electricity.
3.
International
EUROPEANS SCHEDULE NEW TALKS WITH IRAN ON ITS NUCLEAR PLANS
By Steven R. Weisman
New York Times
May 18, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/international/middleeast/18iran.html
WASHINGTON -- The leading foreign ministers of Europe have set another round of talks with Iran for early next week, most likely in Paris, amid growing hopes that they can put off a confrontation over Iran's suspected nuclear program until elections next month, European diplomats said Tuesday.
The diplomats, speaking anonymously because of the extreme sensitivity of their talks, said that if the talks could proceed in the next month, then it was possible that the victors in the elections might eventually be willing to accept political and economic incentives in exchange for abandoning the nuclear program.
The plan to keep the talks going until the elections had long been the objective, but it was in danger of unraveling earlier in the month, when Iran declared at the United Nations that it would resume nuclear activities, then appeared to back away from that threat.
The erratic state of talks with Tehran was a focus of a meeting on Tuesday evening between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, American and British officials said. Also discussed, they said, was how to respond if the talks were to collapse abruptly.
Ms. Rice said afterward, as she has before, that Iran must negotiate an end to its activities or face the possibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency referring its case to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions. But neither she nor Mr. Straw expressed more than a guarded hope.
"As to the outcome of those discussions, I can't predict," Mr. Straw said of the talk he and his German, French and European counterparts plan to have next week with Hassan Rowhani, Iran's senior nuclear negotiator. "I hope, but I can't predict, that the negotiations at the beginning of next week will be fruitful."
Ms. Rice added that "we've obviously got the Security Council as an option," though some American and European officials caution that getting the council to adopt sanctions against Iran is far from assured.
The sequence of events over the last week had an air of melodrama and some absurdity, several diplomats said. Last week, a top European diplomat suggested that after Iran declared so frequently and firmly that it would resume nuclear activities, it would be impossible to back down without losing face.
This week, the same diplomat said it appeared that Iran had indeed changed its mind, even at the expense of looking like it was backing down. Many experts say that the switches in position reflect a debate between forces perceived as more secular-oriented leaders and hard-liners who are believed to reside among Iran's circle of high-ranking clerics.
"The fact that Rowhani will be coming to Europe next Monday or Tuesday is at least a sign that we can continue the talks and that they won't break their agreements to suspend their uranium programs," the diplomat said.
A toughly worded letter from Mr. Straw and his colleagues last week, warning that Iran was in danger of angering the international community, "has had an impact," the diplomat said, adding, "Speaking bluntly, it moves us closer to the elections and the chance that there can be a negotiated agreement."
Iran has an acknowledged a uranium enrichment program that it asserts is for peaceful nuclear energy purposes, but experts say that the program's many parts, and the fact that Iran has failed to disclose all of it, reinforce suspicions of its intentions.
Iran's immediate objective has been to convert uranium tetrafluoride to uranium hexafluoride gas. Western experts fear that it might then enrich the gas to a higher grade of fuel with the help of a centrifuges it has been assembling in various parts of the country.
That step could produce weapons-grade fuel, the experts say.
Iran's negotiations have been supported in principle by the United States but with top American officials expressing doubt about their success at the outset. Only after President Bush's trip to Europe and other trips by Ms. Rice have American officials managed to convince the Europeans that they really do support the talks and hope they succeed, averting a confrontation with Iran.
4.
News
International
UNITY VOWED ON IRAN AFTER IRAQ SPLIT
Reuters
May 18, 2005
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=8523490
WASHINGTON -- The United States and Britain vowed on Tuesday to remain united in curbing Iran's nuclear programs and avoid a repeat of the rift between the Bush administration and its European allies over Iraq.
With the Europeans due to return to the table with Tehran next week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her British counterpart underscored their commitment to negotiations on ending sensitive Iranian nuclear activities but expressed confidence they and their European allies would act together if the issue were to go to the U.N. Security Council.
"There were many people around who were trying to say this would be another occasion for a, quote, 'split,' between Europe and America and so on," British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said at a joint news conference with Rice in Washington. "Those people are being confounded."
Rice said the Bush administration's policy shift this year in agreeing to back European economic incentives for Iran to limit its nuclear development had allowed the allies to push a common strategy on Tehran.
"We've come to a united approach in dealing with Iran," the top U.S. diplomat said.
In what was the worst trans-Atlantic disagreement in decades, the United States, backed by its closest ally, Britain, invaded Iraq in 2003 over the fierce objections of traditional allies France and Germany.
With the United States generally taking a harder line toward Iran than Britain, France and Germany -- who have been negotiating with the Islamic republic -- political analysts have feared another rift with Europe.
Washington shifted position in March in return for a pledge from the "EU Three" to take Iran to the Security Council, which can impose sanctions, if the negotiations fail to persuade Tehran to give up its atomic fuel program.
"We believe that the process that the EU Three is engaged in is one that is well worth pursuing in order to give Iran a chance to do what Iran needs to do," Rice said.
Straw said: "The E-3, as well as the United States (are) agreed on the action which we reluctantly but necessarily have to take," if the talks collapse.
Tehran says its nuclear program is intended only for power generation, but Washington says Iran is developing nuclear weapons and the Europeans want guarantees Iran will not develop arms under the cover of the nuclear program.
Talks next week between Britain, Germany, France and Iran will address Tehran's threat to resume some activity related to enriching uranium, which the Europeans have warned would force them to support Washington in taking Security Council action.
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told the official IRNA news agency this week that Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani would meet the French, British and German foreign ministers on May 23 to try to reach an 11th-hour compromise.
5.
World
ALLIES TO HOLD NEW TALKS NEXT WEEK WITH IRAN
Associated Press
May 18, 2005
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-17-iran-nukes_x.htm
WASHINGTON -- With U.S. support, three European nations will meet early next week with Iran in a fresh effort to curb its nuclear activities, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Tuesday.
He declined to predict the outcome at a joint news conference with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who blessed the diplomatic effort as "well-worth pursuing."
The talks likely will be held in Paris with Foreign Ministers Michel Barnier of France and Joschka Fischer of Germany joining him at the negotiating table, Straw said.
If they fail, the United States and the allies have agreed to take their concerns to the International Atomic Energy Agency's board in Vienna and probably then to the U.N. Security Council. These are steps "we will reluctantly but necessarily have to take," Straw said.
In the Security Council, the United States is virtually certain to push for economic and political sanctions against Iran, but the outcome is uncertain. Even if the allies support the Bush administration, China, which has veto power, is opposed in principle to sanctions to resolve disputes among nations.
And U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in a recent interview with USA TODAY, predicted deadlock.
But Straw clearly was buoyed by U.S. support for pursuing negotiations even though past rounds have not been productive. A few years ago, he said, there were differences between the allies and the United States, but now "the United States has given us active support in this endeavor."
"There were many people around who were trying to say this would be another occasion of a split between Europe and America and so on," Straw said before winding up the news conference to have a working dinner with Rice. "Those people have been confounded."
Rice, meanwhile, declined to predict the next move in the dispute with Iran.
"I think we will see what comes next," she said. "We've obviously got the Security Council as an option for the international community," she said.
Hasan Rowhani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, is expected to represent his government at the talks.
Iran has said it soon would resume conversion of raw uranium into a gas used for enrichment, a key step toward making nuclear warheads. But it has denied U.S. allegations that it wants to enrich uranium as part of a covert nuclear weapons program. Instead, Iran says its programs are designed to generate power.
The Europeans are insisting on a long-term freeze or even a pledge from Iran to scrap its nuclear activities in exchange for technical and economic aid, political support and guaranteed nuclear fuel supplies.
6.
NUCLEAR AMBIGUITY
By Avner Cohen
Haaretz
May 18, 2005
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/577292.html
Considering the fact that Israel is the country that invented and bequeathed to the world the concept of nuclear ambiguity, there is more than a smidgen of irony that the Israeli discourse about the Iranian nuclear program is predicated on the assumption that Iran's long-term strategic and technological ambitions are fixed, clear and well-defined.
For some time, Israeli political commentators have been repeatedly quoting "official assessments" that repeat the claim that Iran's nuclear program is only few months away from the "point of no return."
According to this discourse, Iran has but one well-defined, strategic goal that is agreed upon by all Iranian decision-makers: to get "the bomb" and then build an arsenal that within a few years would turn it into a nuclear power like, say, India and Pakistan.
According to this view, there is a particular technological point on the curve of Iranian nuclear development, a "point of no return," after which the Iranian bomb should be considered a fait accompli. That point is commonly identified as the moment when the Iranian uranium enrichment program produces a significant amount of highly enriched uranium, enough for one or more bombs. According to a common Israeli assessment, that point of no return is not more than a year away. And at that point, it will be possible to say that international efforts have failed to prevent the Iranian development of a bomb.
As part of that deterministic thinking, Iran is perceived as having one and only one national will. Its nuclear and space programs are described as following a supreme coordinated doctrine subject to a multi-year technological-strategic timetable. According to that scenario, after Iran secretly crosses the point of no return and produces significant amounts of enriched uranium, it will find an excuse that frees it from its commitments to the Europeans.
Iran may continue arguing that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty grants it the right of access to all the elements required for a complete nuclear fuel cycle, including enriched uranium. If at that stage it is decided to discuss it in the U.N. Security Council, Iran will follow in the footsteps of North Korea and unilaterally abandon the NPT, according to Article 10 in the treaty. Under those circumstances, the Middle East will have gone nuclear, and Israel will have to respond appropriately.
Such a scenario is not impossible. However, a deterministic outlook and discourse based on a technological point of no return is grossly misleading. It is derived from a distorted idea of the dynamics of a national nuclear development program -- a process that at the start is unclear, indecisive and highly hedgy. Although there is no doubt among most experts that Iran's goal is to build a nuclear capability with military significance, at this point nobody can predict if, how and to what extent Iran will be able to fulfill its nuclear aspirations.
Will Iran be able to manufacture fissionable material? Will Iran decide to break its commitment to the Europeans? To what extent Iran is bluffing on its threat to resume enrichment? Under what political conditions might Iran declare it is no longer obligated to the NPT and would even undertake a nuclear test?
Nobody has clear answers to these questions, including probably even the heads of the Iranian nuclear program. The answers depend, on the one hand, on the international community's determination in its struggle against a nuclear Iran, and on the other hand on the results of an internal debate within Iran itself about just how worthwhile it would be to develop a nuclear weapon, in light of the possibility of sanctions, or even a military strike against it.
There is a vigorous debate under way in Iran about the concrete goals of the nuclear development. Some aspire to Iran going North Korea's way, abandoning the NPT, conducting nuclear tests and developing an open nuclear arsenal. Others are interested in Iran following Israel's nuclear ambiguity, and some support a nuclear option and an option to enrich uranium, but not necessarily actually going ahead with the enrichment. There are fundamental strategic differences between these three alternatives.
Just as the measure of the determination of the international forces opposed to the nuclearization of Iran has still not faced its final test, neither has the determination of Iran to achieve nuclear capability. Ultimately, the decision is political, not technological, and the struggle over a nuclear Iran will be determined through an ongoing war of attrition, and not by a decisive war.
As of now, the talks with the European troika -- Britain, France, Germany -- are once again in a crisis, but it will take a long time, perhaps years, until we know how this struggle ends. Even if at the end of the struggle Iran does have a certain level of capability of enrichment, it is far from clear if and how it will turn the ability to manufacture fissionable material into a nuclear capability in the military sense of the term.
The bottom line is that only a strong proliferation prevention regime can guarantee that Iran does not actualize the possibility of developing a nuclear bomb. The problem is that more than ever before, the proliferation prevention regime is weak, divided and leaderless.
--The writer is author of Israel and the Bomb. His new book, Israel's Last Taboo, will be published next month.
|
