A welcome change in Iran The combination of a reformist agenda, impeccable revolutionary credentials and close relations with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenai, in Iran’s new President, who took office on August 4, 2013, augers well for Iran. Washington has also greeted the change and expressed its hope that this will improve the antagonistic relations between the two countries. Iran is hurting badly with the imposition of the US sponsored UN economic sanctions and one of the primary tasks of the new President would be to try to get the sanctions regime lifted or eased. This will inevitably require a resumption of negotiations and agreement between Iran and the US and the West in general on the issue of Iran’s acquisition and use of uranium enrichment technology. A removal of this impasse would be welcomed by the western countries who want access to Iranian oil and business and Pakistan which would then be able to proceed with Pak-Iran gas pipeline to alleviate its own critical energy shortages. It may also alleviate tensions in the strife torn Middle East I hate to be a naysayer and sound overly negative about the prospects of a successful resolution of these issues, but I do think that Iran needs to be particularly careful while entering into any negotiations with the West. I think we cannot totally discount the possibility that the objective of revived talks, at least from the point of view of the hardliners in the US and the powerful Israel lobby could be quite different from that of Iran and the moderate elements in the West. This section may view any revived negotiations not as an opportunity of settling the dispute and welcoming Iran back in the fold of the International community, but one for discrediting the new Iranian leader, destroying his image as a possible reformer and make him appear no different from his predecessor. I say this since the whole attitude of the US and the West during the previous negotiations with the Iranians on the nuclear issue does not appear to be completely Kosher. I can understand that they do not completely believe Iran’s stated intention to develop Nuclear technology for peaceful purposes even though it is backed by a fatwa from the clerics that the production of Nuclear bombs for offensive purposes is “Haram”, even though such a fatwa is an important element in policy formulation for an Islamic State. However, I do not completely understand their total refusal to accept Iran’s Uranium enrichment program, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran is a signatory, does not forbid it to produce Uranium required for power generation as long as the enrichment levels are much lower than those required for nuclear bombs. ( I think the numbers are 20-30 % enrichment for power and > 98 % for nuclear bombs). I also see that the US and western reaction and policy towards North Korea, which uses even more inflammatory language towards its neighbors and has actually become a nuclear power is very different. Here they say that this is just a new young leader trying to consolidate power and seeking attention from the West by his jingoistic remarks and North Korea should be helped by aid! Please also recall that Iran had in 2010 actually agreed to a Western proposal that it should ship out its stock pile of nuclear fuel to a third country in return for a guarantee that it would be supplied with fuel required for any of its nuclear reactors as necessary under international supervision. Turkey and Brazil had acted as intermediaries. But after Iran signed the agreement, the West moved the goal post and said that this was now too little and too late! A binding constraint on this matter is Israel’s attitude and the West’s recognition of its position as a legitimate security concern. It is highly unlikely that Israel would budge from its position that any possibility of a nuclear threat from Iran needs to be completely eliminated. I do not think it would consider a cap on uranium enrichment levels under international supervision as a reasonable assurance. It may well press for a complete dismantlement of the whole program and technological platform. I say this since Israel has twice in the past taken unilateral military action against Iraq and Syria to destroy nuclear programs (peaceful or otherwise) there and has gotten away with this blatant aggression in the name of ensuring security for the Israeli State. So how do we move forward? I do think there is some wiggle room. There are significant elements in the US and Europe who do want a resolution of this matter in their own interest. The US and Europe do not have any appetite to enter into any new war in the Middle East and the economic problems in their own countries are formidable and need to be tackled. Peace with Iran will encourage economic growth. So if a deal can be fashioned in which these elements can be assured that the agreed contours of Iran’s nuclear program under international supervision would not pose a military threat to anybody then they may be able to hold Israel back. However, their ability to hold to do so is limited and Israel is tugging at the leash. I think therefore that Iran will need to be particularly careful and show great patience and restraint in the face of any possible provocations during these negotiations and NOT over - react in any way that would give the hostile section of the Western opinion makers the excuse they may be looking for to scuttle the talks. Please remember that to this day the World blames Yasser Arafat as the one who killed the Israel Palestine negotiations hosted by Bill Clinton, by walking out! Also please note that at this time when the US has jump started negotiations between Israel and Palestinians, which are currently ongoing in the US, the Israelis have announced low interest loans for settlers to build settlements in areas of the West Bank accepted by the world as illegal occupation. Clearly this is a provocative measure which is intended to torpedo the peace process. Therefore the crucial element in the negotiations with the West is that Iran should not fall prey to similar tricks. It will need to hold back its own hardliners and doggedly pursue two critical national objectives - First, trying to get the sanctions eased; and Second preserving the right and the where withal of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. It should accept reasonable inspections to assure the West that its technology is not being used for military purposes. Iran must negotiate and try its level best to come out of the sanctions regime that is crippling its economy. I wish them the best.
Posted on: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 03:30:23 +0000