President Barack Obama on October 1 gave Iran two weeks to open its hitherto secret nuclear facility at Qom to inspection. Iran eventually agreed to allow officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to visit the site on Oct. 25. That 10-day gap between what Obama demanded and what Iran was willing to concede symbolizes the looming dilemma for the Administration in the Iran nuclear diplomacy — even if a solution is achieved, it's unlikely to be the solution that the West has been demanding.
An air of gloomy skepticism descended on Washington in the days after the Geneva meeting, with many suggesting that Iran was simply playing for time and not with open cards. The deeper reality, though, is that even if Iran cooperates, it won't necessarily do so on Western terms. The progress made in Geneva, for example, skirted the primary demand that the U.S. and its European allies have pressed since 2006: that Iran freeze and eventually give up its uranium enrichment program, in exchange for a package of political and economic incentives. (See pictures of IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei.)
What Iran did agree to was inspections at Qom, and an arrangement to send low-enriched uranium to Russia to create fuel rods for its medical research reactor in Tehran. The terms on which those inspections, and of the deal for enrichment abroad, will be implemented, remain to be seen. But they may well strengthen safeguards against Iran turning nuclear material into weapons, even as they bypass the demand for Iran to halt uranium enrichment.
U.N. Security Council resolutions, backed by limited sanctions, require that Iran suspend enrichment until transparency concerns raised by the IAEA are settled. But the Western demand that Iran cede the right to enrich its own uranium is a more ambitious goal that doesn't have U.N. backing — because enrichment under safeguards to prevent weaponization is a right of all signatories to the Non Proliferation Treaty. When Iran insists it won't negotiate over its "nuclear rights," that's a signal that it has no intention of giving up enrichment. And the Iranians have so far declined to discuss even a "freeze for freeze" proposal offered by the West last summer, in which no further sanctions would be adopted if Iran simply refrained from expanding its existing enrichment capacity. (See pictures of the world's worst nuclear disasters.)
That doesn't necessarily mean there's no diplomatic solution in the works, or that Iran is simply "playing for time." What it does mean is that Iran will try to focus the diplomacy on strengthening safeguards against weaponization of nuclear material, rather than on halting the production of such material in the first place, as the Western powers have demanded. The U.S. and its allies had sought to prevent Iran from achieving a "breakout" capacity — i.e., assembling sufficient civilian nuclear infrastructure to allow it to move relatively quickly to build a bomb should it choose to break out of the NPT, in the manner that a country such as Japan is capable of doing. That goal required Iran giving up exercising its right to enrich uranium. There's no sign of Iran moving in that direction, but if it shows new flexibility in negotiating further safeguards against weaponization of its nuclear output, that will create a new dilemma for the Obama Administration: whether or not the U.S. and its allies, particularly Israel, can live with an outcome that leaves Iran with "threshold" capacity, even under greater safeguards.
While under attack in a Senate subcommittee from Republicans skeptical over the Geneva talks, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg suggested on Tuesday, according to CNN, that "one reason for the Obama administration's engagement toward Iran was to secure international support for sanctions if Iran continued to defy international demands." The argument works if Iran stonewalls; but if it offers counter-proposals deemed reasonable by China, Russia and some Europeans, winning support for further sanctions would become even harder. And that's a game the Iranians may be ready to play, by refusing to give up uranium enrichment but at the same time showing new openness to measures aimed at strengthening international confidence in the peaceful intent of its nuclear program. Tehran is far more likely to tailor its positions to what will be acceptable to Russia, China and some of the Europeans than it is to heed the demands put forward by the U.S. and its key allies. (Neither Moscow nor Beijing believes Iran is building nuclear weapons, even if they're sympathetic to Western concerns over the need for greater safeguards against it doing so.) The question would then become whether the West is prepared to take Iran's less than satisfactory "Yes" for an answer.
The dilemma is sharpened because the position taken by the U.S. and its closest allies may have been rendered redundant by events. The Bush Administration, backed by France, Britain and Israel, had insisted that Iran could not be trusted to enrich uranium, even for peaceful purposes, and that it should be prevented from even attaining the "know-how" to do so. But "know-how" is a milestone Iran passed long before Bush had even left the Oval Office, and enrichment has been a fact on the ground in Iran for the past four years. And whether that reality is, in fact, reversible, has increasingly come into question, even in Western capitals. The Iranians appear impervious to the sanctions already implemented, and as long as they cooperate with efforts to strengthen safeguards against weaponization, it's unlikely that there will be sufficient international support to significantly strengthen the sanctions regime.
The West would prefer that Iran did not have the civilian nuclear infrastructure that would give it the option of building weapons, but the more likely outcome of a diplomatic process is one that strengthens safeguards against weaponization rather than reversing Tehran's existing enrichment capacity. And the question of whether that's acceptable to the West will ultimately be answered by a cost-benefit analysis of the available alternatives.
See TIME's Pictures of the Week.
See the Cartoons of the Week.
Time.com on Digg Upcoming Popular Today
POWERED BY digg
adFactory.getCmAd(300, 250, "global", "tout").write(); adFactory.getCmAd(300, 100, "article", "tout").write(); var ad = adFactory.getAd(142, 70); ad.setPosition(1) ad.write(); var ad = adFactory.getAd(142, 70); ad.setPosition(2) ad.write(); var ad = adFactory.getAd(142, 70); ad.setPosition(3) ad.write(); var ad = adFactory.getAd(142, 70); ad.setPosition(4) ad.write(); More News from Our Partners CNN Police: TV host who ordered killings is on run Survey: World's Muslim population growing Scientists discover massive ring around Saturn Huffington Post Car bomb kills at least 12 in Afghan capital Pakistan's Military Rejects US Aid Bill American Troops In Afghanistan Losing Heart, Say Army Chaplains AOL News Court Overturns Berlusconi's Immunity Allies Wait as US Mulls Afghan Stance Pirates Mistakenly Fire on Military Vessel Rotten Tomato Duncan Jones talks Moon, Sam Rockwell, and Mute Total Recall: Vince Vaughn's Best Movies Emma Stone talks Zombieland - RT Interview Top Stories on TIME.com Senate Health Bill Gets Strong Score, But Weaker Mandate Could Pose Problems Italian Court Ruling Means Scandal-Hit Berlusconi Must Face Criminal Charges Iran's New Flexibility: Can the U.S. Take Yes for an Answer? More on TIME.com » Afghanistan Controversy: Less Than Meets the Eye Calling 'Em Out: The White House Takes on the Press Rwanda Genocide Arrest: Justice, but Is It for All? Quotes of the Day » Get & Share $Launchpad.CreateMenu({ wid : "491cae4a5db36d0d", actionElement : "myWidget",servicesInclude: ['facebook','yahoo','email','google','live','myspace','netvibes', 'wordpress', 'digg','embed'] }); "At Newark airport. Stopped to buy sandwich (no time to eat today), and the woman behind the counter said, 'I'm so sorry; this one's on me.'" RUTH REICHL, former editor of Gourmet, on Twitter; the magazine was one of four that publisher Condé Nast closed this week More Quotes » var ad = adFactory.getAd(88, 31); ad.setPosition(13) ad.write(); Today in Pictures » Shelter From the Storm Stay Connected with TIME.com Learn More » adFactory.getAd(965, 50).write(); Subscribe to RSS Feeds Sign Up for Newsletters Add TIME Widgets Read TIME Mobile on Your Phone Become a Fan of TIME Get TIME Twitter Updates adFactory.getCmAd(115, 42, "homepage", "tout").write(); © 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved | Privacy Policy | RSS | Newsletter | TIME For Kids | LIFE.com Subscribe | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Media Kit | Reprints & Permissions | Opinion Leaders Panel | Help | Site Map TiiAdTrackRevSci(); function tiQuantcast() { } _qoptions={ qacct:"p-5dyPa639IrgIw", labels:tiQuantcast() } // Initialization var _loomia_scripts_loaded=0; if (typeof L_VARS=='undefined') { L_VARS = new Object() } // Loomia common settings L_VARS.publisher_key = 9065184586; L_VARS.anchor="recommendations_display"; L_VARS.guid ="1929037"; L_VARS.query_params = {"xid" : "Loomia"}; function _loomia_addScript(url) { var anchor=document.getElementsByTagName('HEAD')[0]; var script= document.createElement("SCRIPT"); script.src=url; anchor.appendChild(script); } function _loomia_addCS() { try {_loomia_rec_type = document.getElementById(L_VARS.anchor).className; } catch(e) { _loomia_rec_type='' } if (!_loomia_scripts_loaded) {_loomia_addScript("http://assets.loomia.com/js/clixdom.js"); if (_loomia_rec_type.indexOf('similarrecs') != -1) _loomia_addScript("http://assets.loomia.com/js/simitems.js"); } _loomia_scripts_loaded=1; } // Loads Loomia script after page has loaded if (window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", _loomia_addCS, false); window.addEventListener("load", _loomia_addCS, false); } else if (window.attachEvent) window.attachEvent("onload", _loomia_addCS); L_VARS.number = 3; Sphere.Inline.search("sphereFooter","http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1929037,00.html")
Read Full Article »