Iran’s 'quest' for nuclear weapons

The POST, Sun, Nov,18, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Mohammed El Baradei, the Chief of UN atomic watchdog IAEA, once again reiterated that he had no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and accused the US leaders of adding fuel to the fire with bellicose statements and rhetoric. ‘I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear weapon program going on right now’, remarked the IAEA Chief towards the end of last month in an interview with CNN. He further stated that ‘even if Iran were to be working on a nuclear program.., they are at least a few years from having such a weapon’. 

While rejecting the existence of positive evidence confirming Iran’s concerted efforts to make the nuclear weapon, the IAEA Chief tried to stress that the need of the hour is to work through creative diplomacy. He was of firm opinion that diplomacy was the best tool for resolving the Iranian riddle.  He even asked that if the Americans have more evidence than the IAEA, he would be happy to receive it and move onward. 

Have we seen an active weaponization program?  Have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon program? The answer to both these questions was in negative. He stressed that merely exchanging rhetoric would not resolve the Iranian nuclear case. He suggested that that time has come to ‘stop spinning and hyping’ the Iranian issue warning that the use of military could spark a global conflagration. He cited the successful negotiations with North Korea and recommended similar course of action. 

Undoubtedly the best course of action to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue is through negotiations. It would be much better if the representative of both the US and Iran undertake a course of direct negotiations. However if one examines the statements emanating from American sources, both the political leaders and media, one is bound to be disappointed. For a super power to take such a hard line is indeed not a wise pursuit. 

Recommending a hard line approach towards Iran is likely to take the world on the brink of a major disaster. Not only one should keep in mind that Iran is a powerful country that takes massive pride in its past glory. Threatening the Iranians with military action or even tougher UN sanctions would only harden their attitude. While there are reportedly some Iranians who do not fully support their government policy on this issue, the threat of tough sanctions along with covert threats of military actions have also influenced many to side with their government. 

While the French in pursuit of mending their fence with the Americans have crossed the limits in suggesting the hard line as they even mentioned the likelihood of another major war, the consequences of such an action need to be fully evaluated before any irrational course of action is adopted. The threatening a sovereign country often produces the opposite effect than what is being intended. One can get away with many desired objectives through negotiation than through threats. However one need to recognize that negotiation process implies diplomatic skill and patience. 

Negotiation process needs to involve both the Russian and the Chinese. Both enjoy good relations with Iran and could be extremely useful in resolving the nuclear issue. To accuse them that they are engaged only in preserving their own interests is not appropriate. Their insistence on the negotiated settlement of the issue is indeed the right course of action. One American newspaper wrote that China is ignoring the potentially perverse effect of its policy pursuit and wants to maintain financial advantage and access to Iran’s energy. Indeed there are many countries that are feeling the pinch of limited energy resources and are engaged to get it from wherever it is available and easily accessible. 

The IAEA Chief’s assertion that one should only refer to the use of force when one has already exhausted diplomacy does make sense. While many American leaders find it easy to employ threatening course of action, very few would subject the illegal Israeli actions to their biting criticism. Recently Israel has been accused of taking the law into their own hand when they raided Syria during the month of September. The IAEA Chief highlighted the fact that neither the US nor the Israel had furnished any proof at all to prove that Syrian site that was bombed was a secret nuclear facility. 

If the Israelis had any tangible evidence they should have given it to IAEA enabling it to investigate.  The IAEA Chief stressed that if countries have information that a particular country is working on a nuclear related program, they should contact IAEA which has the authority to investigate. Ignoring the IAEA’s mandate and undertaking unauthorized raid amounts to clear aggression which needs to be condemned by every member of the UN. After all the IAEA is the proper agency that has been assigned to investigate such allegations. 

Actions like Israeli’s raid against Syria in September undoubtedly undermine the IAEA’s investigative system. It is essential that the countries that enjoy some influence over Israel or Israel listens to them must issue restraining warnings to Israel. Already there are many who are continuously pointing towards the double standards of some western countries. In fact some even draw our attentions to double standards that have been repeated demonstrated by the Americans. 

Just as the Americans are continuous highlighting their punitive drive against Iran, the Iranians also do realize the danger of increased isolation if the new set of sanctions is approved by the UN Security Council. They are conscious of the fact that their nuclear program is widely discussed all over the world. According to some estimates the program that started during Shah’s era would attain the desired objective within few years. 

The Iranian authorities not only deny that they are embarked upon a course that would lead to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. The thrust of their argument is that they have sovereign right to carry on with their program which they dub as peaceful. However they also need to realize the existing level of uncertainty in the minds of many world leaders. The incumbent Iranian regime cannot afford to be seen as giving into the pressures applied against them. 

Perhaps the most effective way out is to avoid the issuance of threats and give diplomacy a serious chance. In this connection the IAEA along with countries like China and Russia who enjoy considerable influence over Iran could make substantive contributions. The Americans need to encourage both China and Russia to do their utmost to convince the Iranian leaders to comply with the wishes of international community through diplomacy. 

Avoidance of regularly issued threats of either tough sanctions or the use of military force by the US, Israel and some of the European countries could pave the way for important countries like China and Russia to undertake massive diplomatic drive on one hand and also to ensure the Iranian regime that the agenda of regime change would not be allowed to materialize.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.