The clock is ticking on Iran, or so we're told. But whose clock, and what exactly is it timing? Obama administration officials say Iran has until September to respond to the US offer to negotiate over its nuclear programme or face what the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, calls “crippling sanctions”. But what exactly is being demanded of Iran, and what is being offered? And what if those sanctions don't change its stance?
Iran insists that its programme is entirely for peaceful energy production, and that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons. But – and this is perhaps the crucial point in the conversation – it very much insists that as a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty, it does, in fact, have the right to enrich uranium, and has no intention of surrendering that right. That, moreover, is not only the position of the hardline Ahmadinejad government, but also of its pragmatic and reformist rivals who continue to challenge the legitimacy of the president's reelection.
The US and its allies believe Iran is using the cover of a civilian nuclear energy programme to put in place many of the key elements of a bomb, particularly the ability to enrich uranium. The Non Proliferation Treaty allows its signatories (including Iran) to enrich uranium as reactor fuel, under monitoring by the International Atomic Energy to ensure that it is not enriched to weapons grade. According to the US Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, the US intelligence community believes Iran won't have the technical capacity to produce weapons-grade material until 2013; that its leaders have not taken a political decision to create a bomb; and that they won't do so as long as their programme remains under international scrutiny.
document.write('');
Some Iranian officials have signalled a willingness to negotiate over mechanisms to allay international fears by strengthening safeguards against Iran's uranium enrichment capacity being used for weaponisation, but they have not been prepared to surrender the principle that enrichment is their right. A few days before Iran's recent election debacle, Senator John Kerry, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dismissed as “ridiculous” the Bush administration's demand that Iran forgo uranium enrichment. “They have a right to peaceful nuclear power and to enrichment for that purpose,” he said.
But that is not, of course, what Mrs Clinton has been saying on the question of enrichment. So adopting Mr Kerry's approach would indicate to Iran that the US had moved its position, and might encourage more flexibility (or, some might argue, more defiance) from Tehran. Either way, Iran's turbulent domestic political situation, in which a weakened president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has to establish a new governing consensus, militates against engaging in a politically tricky search for a compromise on the nuclear issue right away. Unfortunately, the same may be true for the Obama administration: it would have been a lot easier to be flexible with Mir Hossein Mousavi than with Mr Ahmadinejad. The advice from most Iran analysts is that the US should simply wait for the dust to settle before pressing for engagement, and should avoid taking steps that could harm the prospects for political change in Tehran.
Advocates of sanctions say they would give teeth to Mr Obama's negotiation offer, by showing Iran that there will be immediate and escalating consequences for failure to heed western demands. Currently under discussion are measures to pressure third countries to stop supplying petrol to Iran (almost half its consumption of petroleum products is imported). But despite the tough talk, the options are limited. Russia
Comment
Iranian 'show trial' condemned
Read the newspaper as it was printed
Send us your stories and pictures
document.write(''); So time is ticking away on Iran? Let's stop the clock
Tony Karon
Last Updated: August 08. 2009 11:24PM UAE / August 8. 2009 7:24PM GMT
The clock is ticking on Iran, or so we're told. But whose clock, and what exactly is it timing? Obama administration officials say Iran has until September to respond to the US offer to negotiate over its nuclear programme or face what the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, calls “crippling sanctions”. But what exactly is being demanded of Iran, and what is being offered? And what if those sanctions don't change its stance?
@body arnhem:Iran insists that its programme is entirely for peaceful energy production, and that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons. But – and this is perhaps the crucial point in the conversation – it very much insists that as a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty, it does, in fact, have the right to enrich uranium, and has no intention of surrendering that right. That, moreover, is not only the position of the hardline Ahmadinejad government, but also of its pragmatic and reformist rivals who continue to challenge the legitimacy of the president's reelection.
The US and its allies believe Iran is using the cover of a civilian nuclear energy programme to put in place many of the key elements of a bomb, particularly the ability to enrich uranium. The Non Proliferation Treaty allows its signatories (including Iran) to enrich uranium as reactor fuel, under monitoring by the International Atomic Energy to ensure that it is not enriched to weapons grade. According to the US Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, the US intelligence community believes Iran won't have the technical capacity to produce weapons-grade material until 2013; that its leaders have not taken a political decision to create a bomb; and that they won't do so as long as their programme remains under international scrutiny.
document.write('');
Some Iranian officials have signalled a willingness to negotiate over mechanisms to allay international fears by strengthening safeguards against Iran's uranium enrichment capacity being used for weaponisation, but they have not been prepared to surrender the principle that enrichment is their right. A few days before Iran's recent election debacle, Senator John Kerry, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dismissed as “ridiculous” the Bush administration's demand that Iran forgo uranium enrichment. “They have a right to peaceful nuclear power and to enrichment for that purpose,” he said.
But that is not, of course, what Mrs Clinton has been saying on the question of enrichment. So adopting Mr Kerry's approach would indicate to Iran that the US had moved its position, and might encourage more flexibility (or, some might argue, more defiance) from Tehran. Either way, Iran's turbulent domestic political situation, in which a weakened president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has to establish a new governing consensus, militates against engaging in a politically tricky search for a compromise on the nuclear issue right away. Unfortunately, the same may be true for the Obama administration: it would have been a lot easier to be flexible with Mir Hossein Mousavi than with Mr Ahmadinejad. The advice from most Iran analysts is that the US should simply wait for the dust to settle before pressing for engagement, and should avoid taking steps that could harm the prospects for political change in Tehran.
Advocates of sanctions say they would give teeth to Mr Obama's negotiation offer, by showing Iran that there will be immediate and escalating consequences for failure to heed western demands. Currently under discussion are measures to pressure third countries to stop supplying petrol to Iran (almost half its consumption of petroleum products is imported). But despite the tough talk, the options are limited. Russia and China are not convinced that Iran represents a nuclear weapons threat, and their own interests in Iran will prompt them to block UN action. And the US would struggle to prevent Iran from beating a boycott via Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. The Iraq experience is a reminder that sanctions typically strengthen the hand of an autocratic regime and immobilise the middle class most likely to oppose it, by making everyone more dependent on the state for essential resources.
Iran at the best of times responds badly to threats, ultimatums and deadlines, and it's difficult to imagine even the new wave of sanctions being contemplated by the US changing Tehran's position.But if the US is committed to escalating pressure to force Iran to back down, what next? A naval blockade? The Iranians would treat it as an act of war, and respond in some nasty, asymmetrical way. And then what? A military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities? That would certainly start a war, with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences throughout the Middle East, and wouldn't even necessarily end Iran's pursuit of nuclear capacity.
Those who advocate that Mr Obama tie his diplomatic outreach to tight deadlines that trigger new sanctions are committing the US to a path of ever-escalating pressure that could easily drag him into a war he would prefer to avoid. The only real argument being advanced for imposing new sanctions on Iran is the idea that if the US fails to show progress in its diplomatic effort to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions by the end of this year, Israel will take matters into its own hands and launch a military strike.
But Washington will restrain Israel from taking actions that will prejudice US security, and allowing the Israeli leadership's more alarmist reading of the situation to set the clock for Washington's dealings with Iran could leave Mr Obama in a very uncomfortable place.Tony Karon is a New York-based analyst who blogs at rootlesscosmopolitan.comtonykaron@gmail.com
Send to friend Print var addthis_pub="noahkhan"; var addthis_brand = "The National"; var addthis_logo = "http://www.thenational.ae/images/the_national_logo.gif"; var addthis_logo_color = "3261A5"; Bookmark & Share function storeCaret(textEl) { if (textEl.createTextRange) textEl.caretPos = document.selection.createRange().duplicate(); } if ((document.all) && (navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Opera')== -1)) { IE = true; } else { IE = false; } function doSubmitMessage(aFormId,aUrl){ aForumForm = aFormId; aCreateUrl = aUrl+"&omniture=0"; aForumMessageUrl = ''; aAjaxDiv = document.getElementById("cpost"); processForum(aAjaxDiv); }
Have your say
Please log in to post a comment try { if (document.getElementById("_userEmail").innerHTML = '') { document.newmessageform.Body.disabled=true; document.newmessageform.post.disabled = true; } } catch(e) { document.newmessageform.Body.disabled = true; document.newmessageform.post.disabled = true; } See also Iranian 'show trial' condemned Other Opinion stories In Lebanon, sects come first, the nation second Fatah's legacy stands at low ebb When treason's in the air, it's a bad day for democracy The nation's future hinges on its health care So time is ticking away on Iran? Let's stop the clock Fight terror's roots, not just its leaders document.write(''); Top stories Most would go abroad for medical treatment Abu Dhabi hotels among world's most costly Next stop the Dubai Metro Watchdog warned of flight dangers Dust clouds sap UAE's solar panels' power Life returns to Gulf job market United begin life after Ronaldo Your View Have you been affected by the slowdown in construction on projects in Dubai?Have you been sold out-of-date food? Tell us your experienceTell us your experiences of using the 993 serviceTell us your memories and thoughts of the former Philippines president Corazon AquinoWill the new parking fees deter you from driving your own car into the city centre? Most popular stories Most read Most e-mailed Child 'failures' moved from schools Indonesian police kill militant chief Life returns to Gulf job market Yasmine Hamdan: making the crossover Sheikh Mohammed accepts ban High-speed ferry service for Abu Dhabi Is Dh5m too costly to save a life? Credit card safety net with holes in it Dubai refuses Sex and the City filming Have you been affected by the slowdown in construction on projects in Dubai? Two fathers – and 138 children Opinions differ on cause of UAE dust Embassies report jailed expat numbers Why food inspectors closed meat counters Make no little plans An Islamic history is a vital part of Ethiopia's richness A Midas who lost his touch Asian budget carrier may land in Abu Dhabi Hotel rates capped for Grand Prix Dubai Marina's high-rise dreams deferred var countries=new ddtabcontent("countrytabs") countries.setpersist(true) countries.setselectedClassTarget("link") //"link" or "linkparent" countries.init() Products & Services Your View e-polls e-Paper RSS Feeds Home UAE World Business Sport About us Contact us Terms & Conditions FAQ Site map
© Copyright of Abu Dhabi Media Company PJSC.
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4452332-2"); pageTracker._initData(); pageTracker._trackPageview(); //-1?'https:':'http:') +unescape('//me.effectivemeasure.net/em.js%22%3E%3C/script%3E')); //]]> var doLoad = true; if (doLoad) { updatePollMini(); } s.Account="saxotechthenational" s.cookieDomainPeriods="2" s.pageName="Opinion,So time is ticking away on Iran? Let's stop the clock:20090809:708089932" s.server="S260608AT1VW921" s.channel="Opinion" /* Traffic Variables */ s.prop1="Story" /* E-commerce Variables */ /* Hierarchy Variables */ s.hier1="Opinion,So time is ticking away on Iran? Let's stop the clock:20090809:708089932" /************* DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! **************/ var s_code=s.t(); if(s_code)document.write(s_code)
Read Full Article »