Saturday, Oct 30, 2004
Iran's nuclear programme
By Atul Aneja
Three key European countries have offered new incentives, with the apparent backing of the U.S., to Iran to stop enriching uranium. Teheran has said it is not giving up the programme. A new phase of stonewalling is expected.
ANOTHER HIGH profile round of talks between Iran and three key European countries has just ended in Vienna. This time, Britain, France, and Germany have offered a new package of incentives to Iran to stop enriching uranium. They have asked Teheran to suspend the process "indefinitely" in return for a light water nuclear reactor, for generating electricity, and low enriched uranium as fuel along with related nuclear technology. Trade concessions, including membership of the World Trade Organisation, could also be in the pipeline. The package on offer apparently has the backing of the United States, although the State Department has reservations about the transfer of new nuclear technology to Iran.
Iran has not accepted the deal but has agreed to hold another round of talks before the crucial meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on November 25, where its case will be discussed. If the IAEA board members are unable to reconcile their differences, Iran's nuclear dossier will be referred to the United Nations Security Council, opening the door for sanctions.
Notwithstanding the mounting pressure, the atmosphere in Iran's political circles is far from gloomy. The Iranians have up their sleeve enough cards that, if played correctly, could leave them unscathed.
Iran has unequivocally declared, as a matter of principle, that it is not giving up enrichment of uranium. Teheran says its nuclear programme has a peaceful orientation and that it is legally entitled, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to master the nuclear fuel cycle. Iran is driving a hard bargain, based on an extensive preparation for a worst-case scenario if required. For all the rhetoric echoing through the media, Iran is aware that Washington simply does not have the capacity to open another military front, with its forces already overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Secondly, Iranian nuclear capability cannot be dismantled in a single surgical strike, like when the Israelis bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.
The Iranian nuclear facilities are spread out throughout the country. David Albright, who heads the Institute for Science and International Security, points out: "While military strikes can hurt Iran's nuclear capabilities, they cannot stop them... There are likely [to be] other facilities that are unknown and would escape damage."
Thirdly, with oil prices touching all-time highs, further political instability in the Persian Gulf through a U.S. attack on Iran would be simply unaffordable.
With a war virtually ruled out, Iran, on the face of it, can only be subjected to international sanctions. But imposing sanctions is easier said than done. The Americans have already clarified their intent to bring Iran's nuclear case from the IAEA to the Security Council, where the five permanent members can collectively call for Iran's economic boycott. But two of the five are opposed to economic sanctions. China's Ambassador to the United Nations has already declared that the Beijing will veto any resolution on sanctions against Iran. Russia, which is building a nuclear facility in Bushehr, and is likely to participate in Teheran's plans to build six nuclear power plants in the future, is also expected to reject moves calling for Iran's economic isolation.
Instead of U.N. sanctions, it is possible that the U.S. will try and persuade Britain, France, Germany, and Japan to impose an economic blockade. However, there are pitfalls in this approach as well. Japan, for instance, is a big importer of Iranian oil - 17 per cent of its daily consumption of 4.2 million barrels. Japan has also deepened its stakes in Iran's energy sector. Despite considerable American pressure, Japan earlier this year decided to put in $2 billion for developing Iran's giant Azadegan oil field. With trade with Iran hovering around the $20 billion mark last year, the European Union will also have to pay some price for going along with the U.S.
Aware of the obstacles in pressuring Iran, the U.S. appears to have altered its tactics and is endorsing the "carrot and stick" approach, as unveiled in Vienna. Many Iranian intellectuals, however, are of the view that the seeming shift in the U.S. approach is not genuine. As Iran would reject anything that would deprive it of control of the nuclear fuel cycle, this approach, in the end, is meant to build a tighter case for imposing international economic measures against Teheran.
Iran is likely to reiterate that it is ready to halt enrichment for some more time, and engage in protracted negotiations till a permanent solution is found. A new phase of stonewalling is therefore expected.
Copyright © 2004, The Hindu.