Share this story!            

VIEW: Resolving Iran’s nuclear issue —Nauman Asghar

Iran has repeatedly told the international community that its nuclear programme is peaceful and its purpose is confined to fulfilling the country’s energy requirements. But the US and other western powers have been reluctant to take Iran’s assertion at its face value

In the wake of the recently held Geneva talks, Iran’s nuclear issue is back on the radar screen and has taken centre-stage among outstanding matters of international concern. The talks were significant because they opened the door to direct contact between high-level officials of Iran and the US for the first time during the last three decades. Iran also agreed to soften its stance.

The former US president George Bush could not succeed in his efforts to persuade Iran to halt uranium enrichment primarily because of his incoherent policies and half-baked efforts. Given a long history of strained relations between the two countries since 1979, Iran could not be engaged in the process of negotiations while the US continued to lash out at the Iranian regime as part of the ‘axis of evil’.

US President Obama during his election campaign promised to reorient his policy to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue and convince Iran of the meaningfulness of ‘direct engagement’ and ‘diplomacy’. He pledged to reach out to Tehran without any pre-condition for talks. At present the solution to the issue is significant for the US because of three reasons. One, it will give a fillip to the peace process in the Middle East region. Two, it will not merely boost Obama’s image but further his policy to seek a nuclear-free world. Third, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mr ElBaradei will depart from the scene in a few weeks and the resulting communication gap may result in losing the fruits laboriously achieved so far.

Iran has repeatedly told the international community that its nuclear programme is peaceful and its purpose is confined to fulfilling the country’s energy requirements. But the US and other western powers have been reluctant to take Iran’s assertion at its face value. They fear that Iran may use the enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb, which will further destabilise the region. The concerns regarding Iran’s real intentions have also been raised because President Ahmedinejad has on many occasions spoken out aggressively against Israel.

As part of the international diplomatic efforts to fix Iran’s nuclear problem, last month the IAEA offered Tehran a deal working in cooperation with the US, France and Russia. The deal stipulates Iran will ship 75 percent of its low-enriched uranium to Russia for further enrichment, which will then be transferred to France. After the fabrication of fuel rods in France, they will be sent to Iran for their medical use to treat cancer and other diseases.

The deal was designed to defuse the crisis and delay the process of construction of Iran’s atomic bomb by reducing the low-enriched uranium stock below the threshold needed for the completion of a bomb. During the talks, Iran accepted the deal in principle but its delayed ‘initial’ reply has been a bit disappointing. Tehran has refused to accept the nuclear deal in its present shape and has proposed significant changes. As per Iran’s contentions, it is not ready to part with three-quarters of its uranium stock in one go but small batches can be sent in installments. Such changes, if effected, can metamorphose the whole deal into a new agreement destroying the primary purpose of the original deal, i.e. to assuage the concerns of the international community. This way the possibility of Iran to continue pursuing the acquisition of atomic weapons cannot be ruled out.

The IAEA Director General ElBaradei has pointed out that lack of mutual trust is the key problem in resolving the nuclear standoff. In fact, Iran wants ‘cast-iron’ assurances that the fuel will come back. Iran has adopted the stance that there must take place simultaneous transfer of fuel in return for shipment of uranium. The IAEA chief has suggested a solution that uranium may be shipped to a third country, which enjoys the goodwill of both parties and stays there pending the fuel supply to Iran. It is essential to understand that if now the nuclear talks are stalled, the diplomatic efforts will take a hard knock.

Iran needs to reconsider its nuclear policy or there is a likelihood of isolation of the Iranian regime on the international front. Moreover, the attitude of non-compliance will create the impression that Iran is not serious in resolving the crisis and engages in talks merely to buy time. The incumbent president has already forfeited legitimacy as a result of the recent presidential elections. Iran has hitherto depended upon Russia and China to water down the impact of UN-imposed sanctions. Iran is also confident that the US will not be able to muster international support in order to launch military strikes. But in case of Iran’s intransigence, the situation may take a turn for the worse. Iran’s persistent attitude of non-cooperation may unite the big powers into adopting a harsher stance. President Obama is continuously working on courting Russia to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions and therefore he has taken a bold decision to scrap the Czech missile defence project to appease Russia.

Russia has already postponed the agreed delivery of S-300 air missiles that could protect Iran’s nuclear facilities against potential strikes. Russia has made public its stance to support sanctions against Iran if diplomacy fails and has also urged Iran to show maximum transparency and cooperate with the international community. Russia’s strategic and commercial ties with Iran give it unmatched leverage to influence the latter to moderate its defiance.

Now it is in the overwhelming interest of both parties to stay the course and make genuine efforts to conclude a deal or else the boat will be missed. The reduction in stockpiles coupled with delaying of the nuclear weapons programme would mollify the apprehensions of the international community and present the latter the opportunity to smooth the way towards an eventual nuclear deal. Iran will also benefit from the deal because it does not ask Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. Thus if Ahmedinejad signs the deal, he will also get an opportunity to widen his narrowing political base and calm down his opponents.

The writer is an advocate. He can be reached at naumanlawyer@gmail.com

Home | Editorial

Share this story!