Iran’s nuclear quest and the US

The POST, Sun, Sep,09, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

It is a well acknowledged fact that many great powers have demonstrated the employment of double standards to various periodically emerging situations in various parts of the world. Partly these dual policy pursuits are product of what is known as the dictates of time and partly these are the requirements of changing situations. A great power invariably adjusts or modifies its policy in congruence with its policy objectives. What is interesting is the fact that no power acknowledges the existence of double standards in their policy pursuits but often vehemently denies such pursuits. 

The latest example of American double standards revolves around US pressurization on Iran on the suspicions that Iran is engaged in building a nuclear device and the Indo-US nuclear deal. The American are convinced that Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons whereas the Iran stresses that they are only engaged in acquiring nuclear capability for peaceful purposes. The US is insisting that Iran must suspend its uranium enrichment program. 

The American officials have accused Tehran of pretending to cooperate with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) in order to avoid further UN sanctions and has consistently stressed that Iran is defying UN Security Council demands to stop uranium enrichment which makes fuel for civilian reactors but also bomb material. The American stress that  Iran’s nuclear file will remain open as long as Iran refuses to meet international obligations to suspend activities of international concern. 

The American officials also highlighted that since the last IAEA’s last report in May on Iran the Islamic Republic of Iran has increased 50 per cent of number of centrifuges cascades running with uranium hexafluoride in the secret underground bunkers in Natanz to enrich uranium. ‘This is a serious concern to the IAEA board and the UN Security Council’, stressed the American ambassador Gregory Schulte. He further stated that ‘if Iran’s leaders truly want to close the nuclear file they would cooperate fully and unconditionally with the IAEA and suspend activities that are not necessary for civil purposes but are necessary for to build bombs’. 

The latest report by the IAEA states that Iran has agreed with the agency to answer all questions about an array of suspicious past nuclear activities that led the American to suspect that it is engaged in efforts to build nuclear weapon. The Director General of IAEA has categorically stated that Iran has agreed to discuss all outstanding issues which triggered the crisis in confidence. He further suggested that a delay in American led strategy to impose more sanctions would be welcomed. ‘I am clear at this stage you need to give Iran a chance to prove its goodwill. Sanction alone, I know for sure, are not going to lead to a durable solution’ stressed the Director General of IAEA. 

The American officials believe that Iran is playing at cooperating with the IAEA in order to avoid further U&N sanctions and that it is still defying the UN demand to stop making enriched uranium. They believe that Iran has increased its operative quantities of centrifuges at Natanz. This belief is reinforced by the recently reported Iranian President’s assertion that Iran already acquired more than 3000 uranium enriching centrifuges. However generally accepted belief is that Iran is operating around 2000 centrifuges at the moment which is far short of requisite numbers deemed necessary for the weapon material. 

The IAEA also reported that centrifuges at Natanz are ‘well below the expected quantity’. The IAEA Chief believed that the Iranian leadership seems to have decided to operate Natanz at less than its full capacity. ‘They could have expanded much faster. Some say it’s for technical reasons. My gut feeling is that it’s primarily for political reasons’, stated the IAEA Director General. 

Compared to continued American pressurization of Iran which is a member of NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), the US policy towards India which is not a NPT member reflects glaring double standard. The US has signed what they like to call a civilian nuclear deal. Not only the deal would enable India to get nuclear fuel but it has also indirectly recognized India as a nuclear weapon state. When any country’s nuclear activities are divided into civilian and military categories and as such recognized, it automatically implies that the target country’s nuclear military capabilities are also being recognized. 

Perhaps the major damage done by the Indo-US nuclear deal revolves around the death of NPT regime. Not only the deal struck a death blow to the existing NPT regime but also the Americans changed their own laws to accommodate India. How can one maintain a reasonable level of credibility when a country follows two different policies in the same region? For a friend who has not only violated the NPT regime but also introduced proliferation in South Asia is further rewarded by recognizing it, though indirectly, as nuclear weapons state  whereas another country which is a NPT member in the same area is subjected to intense pressures. 

It is not too difficult to comprehend why the major powers indulge in such types of pursuits and openly demonstrate their double standards. A great power tends to strongly believe in its own approaches and invariably bypasses the aspirations of the target states. Because of its capabilities to influence the target state along with its own belief, it rarely takes into considerations the likely reaction of the people of the target area. Besides, it is a well known fact that a great power is well aware of its own political, economic and military powers that enables it to ignore even the sane pleas from the region. 

The American contradictory policies towards India and Iran represent two different tracks-rewarding one of the proven proliferators on one hand and punishing the other on mere suspicions on the other. Admittedly both are contradictory tracks but power and influence of the US tend to provide the driving force. While it may appear to be an imposition of its policy upon a smaller nation, it is rarely bothered about what others may think as long it is in congruence of its own policy objectives. Besides, this is not the first time that the Americans have demonstrated their double standards and contradictory approaches. 

What is perhaps most damaging aspect of such policy pursuits is that it destroys the little order that has been attained by the operative imperfect international political system. It is expected that great powers would play their role constructively and base their policies on generally accepted civilized norms and just principles. Admittedly the most cardinal principle in the operative mode of international relations is the security and enhancements of one’s own national interests but much more is expected from the great powers in order to maintain international peace and security. 

Contradictory policies could set a bad precedent and there could be nothing worse than a bad precedent which could at some later stage confront those who pursue such policies. It would be relatively a wiser approach to base policies on just principles which has a far more lasting impact in a somewhat constructive way.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.