IRAN: INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY AND IRAN AGREE TALKS

News of Iran’s imminent return to the negotiating table has allayed concerns of further instability in the Middle East. The talks, which are being forced through by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are expected to take place on December 13 in the country’s capital, Tehran. The talks are being held side by side with separate discussions involving Germany, France, Britain, China, Russia and the United States, and are also aimed at defusing the rather complex Middle East powder keg.

The IAEA’s attempts to inject some calm to the tense proceedings have so far been met by strong Iranian resistance. Iran continues to assert that its nuclear intentions are pure and that its purpose for acquiring nuclear capability is non-military. Iran’s return to the negotiating table has surprisingly been met with anything but elation and optimism which most certainly owes to the fact that too many proclamations of a ‘new dawn’ have been sounded out in the past but without progress on the ground commensurate with previous shades of optimism. Dare I say that the present debacle is rather akin to the parable of ‘the boy who cried wolf’.

Matters are not made any easier by the country’s leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who appears to revel in the attention directed by the international media towards his region of the world, albeit for the wrong reasons. Needless to say his latest pronouncements that “the Iranian nation is not seeking an atomic bomb, nor do they need to build an atomic bond” was not only met with silence which it deserved but also derision. To many, Ahmadinejad will continue to fail in his attempts to pull the wool over the watching world’s eyes if he, on the one hand states that the country’s nuclear enrichment programme is geared towards peaceful aims, but at the same time, prevents the IAEA from visiting alleged nuclear enrichment sites and also, continues to threaten the state of Israel, for all their faults, with eternal damnation.

The restrained pronouncements in light of the latest developments by leading global figures perhaps tells its own story and buttresses the writer’s earlier assertions. Catherine Ashton, the Foreign Policy supremo of the European Union cautiously asserted that the talks “could be an initial step on the path to resolving outstanding issues.” The United States, via its State Department Spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, offered: “In the past Iran has been unwilling to do what it needs to do despite the best efforts of the IAEA. But we commend the IAEA for keeping at it and we call on Iran to do what it needs to do to meet the international community’s concerns.”

The announcement comes a week after the Pentagon reported that Iran had fired at an unarmed American drone thereby risking an international incident with the capacity to morph into a major conflict. Nonetheless and in spite of the air of pessimism which pervades, the agreement to return to the table is encouraging and signals a climb down from the ‘chest puffing’ which the conflict’s main protagonists – Iran, Israel and the United States – have so far been engaged. Liberals will argue that the sanctions regime has been effective at forcing Iran to utilise diplomatic channels to resolve the dispute while ‘hawkish Republicans’ and Benjamin Netanyahu’s – the Israeli President - supporters will state that Iran is utilising the talks as a smokescreen whilst it completes its nuclear programme. Although President Obama’s victory most certainly means that the United States will only engage militarily against Iran as a last resort, the writer however believes the threat of an Israeli pre-emptive strike still looms large and has not been allayed by Iran’s sudden and unexpected move.

IRAN: HOW TO SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE A NUCLEAR-ARMED IRAN

This week's article is written by a guest weblogger, Uche Ndaji. Miss Ndaji is a Law graduate with a keen interest in international law and global affairs. She is also an aspiring novelist, poet and writer of the short story form.


The 67th United Nations General Assembly meeting once more highlighted the intensifying political tension between Iran and Israel which has been fuelled by Iran’s burgeoning nuclear ambitions.


IAEA Report

Iran’s latest refusal to consent to an inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) not only heightened suspicions about the country’s true motives for pursuing the nuclear programme but has also become the proverbial ‘red rag’ to Israel’s ‘bull’. Notably, the IAEA’s September 13th resolution which raised concerns about the ferocious pace at which the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant had advanced and in turn the threat which it posed to international peace and stability bolsters Israel’s claims regarding Iran’s intended purpose for embarking on the project.


Tough Questions

Some might question the widespread objection to Iran’s enrichment programme since nuclear warheads have so far not been produced nor can observers assert with confidence that they will be constructed in the near future. How seriously should President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s posturing be taken? Why is the West quick to dismiss the Iranian government’s assertion that its nuclear programmes are intended for peaceful purposes while Security Council members keep nuclear stockpiles in readiness for potential use? What will unilateral strikes by Israel on Iran’s plant do to diffuse or escalate the instability in the Middle East?

The unanswered questions lead one to doubt that a resolution to the region’s peace and security problems will be arrived at in the immediate future. At the same time however, they are legitimate queries which demand valid answers.


The Case for and Against ‘Pre-Emptive Strike’

According to the New York Times, “international nuclear inspectors confirmed that Iran had installed three-quarters of the centrifuges it needs to complete a deep-underground site for the production of nuclear fuel.” Assuming there is an inkling of truth to the allegation, certain concerns arise bearing in mind recent history of the intelligence errors which resulted in the ghastly mission that was the last Iraq war.

Like Saddam Hussein, President Ahmadinejad’s petulance can be dismissed as a façade, a sorry attempt at attracting international attention to his many baseless causes for instance: “wiping Israel off the map” whilst declaring that “the regime is on its way to annihilation.” Ahmadinejad’s venomous language continued to flow at the General Assembly where he reiterated that “Israel has no roots in the Middle East.”

Yet how can the UN separate suspicions of the Iranian government’s nuclear ambitions from Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory rhetoric? One can certainly draw parallels with Saddam Hussein who misguidedly engaged in similar ‘war games’ with the international community about his alleged possession of chemical weapons. With the benefit of hindsight which of course is the best sight, Hussein’s antics appeared to have been a defence mechanism, or better yet, merely a ruse to fend off intimidation from neighbouring states.


Iraq Parallels

Evidence provided by the Iraq Survey Group in 2004 concluded that Saddam Hussein’s government possessed no chemical weapons thus validating the illegitimacy of the conflict. Yet, there is a telling distinction between both circumstances; Iran is actively expanding its nuclear program whereas Saddam Hussein remained pigheaded and somewhat unpredictable with regard to ownership of biological and chemical weapons leading to a sweeping assumption that his government embarked on the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Lessons should have been learned from the Iraq crisis for the reason that, without comprehensive evidence and concrete substantiation of the existence of nuclear weapons, pre-emptive strikes must be avoided at all costs.

Furthermore, it is important to point out that nuclear programs can in fact be used for ‘peaceful purposes’ as claimed by the Iranian government. For example, Japan uses its nuclear plants to generate electricity although its dependence on nuclear power remains somewhat controversial following the meltdown of the Fukushima Daichii Nuclear Power Plant after a devastating earthquake and the subsequent tsunami which ravaged much of the country in March 2011.

Unlike Japan, some of the doubts facing Iran’s nuclear programs are exacerbated by its hateful denouncement of Israel, questioning Israel’s existence and its promise to eliminate Israel. When nuclear development is added to the framework, doubts set in consequently discrediting the ‘peaceful’ nature of such programmes.


The Potential for War

Finding a solution appears more difficult than the crisis itself. Prior to the General Assembly meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu restated the importance of setting a ‘red line’ on Iran’s nuclear expansion. Mr. Netanyahu backed up this statement in flamboyant fashion at the meeting with a visual chart, highlighting the 90% point at which military strikes would be appropriate to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment.

Talks of a unilateral strike on Iran by the Israeli government have circulated for months, although the United States opts for a diplomatic solution through economic sanctions and has so far avoided all suggestions of military action. The eagerness for conflict seems to have diminished from the Obama government’s discourse and the Iranian government keeps a close eye on this. Some state that the US government has suffered enough financial strain as a result of the Iraq war which Iran is all too aware of and has sought to capitalize upon.


The Effect of Sanctions

However, claims last week that EU and US sanctions have sent the Iranian economy into free fall gathered pace with The Guardian reporting an overwhelming 15% depreciation of the rial. The diminishing accessibility of foreign currency and inflationary food prices resulted in the Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz’s proclamation that the Iranian economy is “on the verge of collapse” as reported by Reuters.

Evidently, sanctions are somewhat effective though it needs reminding that Iran’s foreign currency reserves can still be used to galvanise its economy which would ultimately render the sanctions useless. What appears interesting is how far the sanctions can go to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms. Will further sanctions be invoked to stop Iran from accessing its foreign currency reserves? Would global financial isolation convince the government to curtail its nuclear activity?

Regrettably, sanctions affect ordinary citizens who are innocent bystanders and who are also in the thrall of this regime. The hardship caused by the sanctions could have the counter-productive effect of pushing the country’s citizens into extremism, thereby intensifying the level of distrust, which is already at an all time high, between the West and the Muslim world. As we have learnt from our planet’s complex politics, sanctions do not always affect the politicos or theocrats as they can easily serve as a recruitment drive for the respective government’s anti-western campaigns.


So Where Do We Go From Here, What Happens Next?

It is unlikely that the Israeli government will follow through with threats of a unilateral pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities without the participation of its great ally, the United States. Needless to say the unilateral pre-emptive strike would be an unfortunate decision considering the fragile political state of the Middle East, what with Syria, Yemen and Lebanon being in the grip of unrelenting internal turmoil.

One can take comfort in the knowledge that the UN and IAEA appear to be more in control of this situation than it was in its handling of the Iraq affair if evidence is to be scrutinized. One hopes that the lessons learnt from the past will bolster academic arguments against the concept of ‘pre-emptive strike’ currently favoured by the U.S neo-cons and the Israeli government.

THE MIDDLE EAST: IRAN, ISRAEL, THE US AND THE LEGALITY OF A POTENTIAL PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE

This week’s proclamations from President Barack Obama and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu regarding Iran’s budding nuclear ambitions has led to fears that the war of words between Iran and the rest of the world may metamorphosize into armed conflict, most likely sparked by a pre-emptive strike. In the lead up to next week’s meeting between President Obama and PM Netanyahu, the latter appeared to seek the reassurance and support of the US in tackling the problem that is Iran.


Iran buying time?

One recalls that, in what appeared at the time as an attempt to cool tensions, the Tehran government wrote to Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy head in February promising “new initiatives” in its attempts to negotiate its way out of this political impasse. To date however, the EU has failed to respond to the Iranian olive branch which involves a return to the negotiating table which both parties have not sat at since negotiations stalled last year. This recent shift in position by Iran is undermined by last week’s report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which revealed that Iran is significantly stepping up its uranium enrichment arsenal.

Israel fears that the recent overture offered by Iran is merely a ploy to buy time in order to complete its enrichment programme. Speaking last week whilst in the company of the Canadian PM, Stephen Harper, himself a staunch Israel ally, PM Netanyahu warned the west against falling “into this trap”. Netanyahu propounded “it could do again what it has done before; it could pursue or exploit the talks as they’ve done in the past to deceive and delay so that they can continue to advance their nuclear programme and get to the nuclear finish line by running up the clock, so to speak.”


US backing for a pre-emptive strike?

Netanyahu appears to have received the backing he has sought from President Obama. In an interview with Atlantic magazine, Obama stated “I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognise that when the US says it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons, we mean what we say.” He added: “all options are on the table…it includes a military component. And I think people understand that”. Obama however slightly put the breaks on any suggestions that it supports a full scale pre-emptive strike in asserting that he felt it unwise for Israel to go ahead with any attack which may enhance the ‘victim status’ position which Iran has played on during the course of this long running dispute.


Any hopes of roundtable talks?

Chances of a resolution by negotiation and diplomacy are gradually dissipating by the day. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 72, at the end of last month declared that the country would “impose its own threats at the right time” in response to armed conflict or war. The Ayatollah has used the country’s recent elections to bolster his credibility and to assure his people that he will preserve their security against “the arrogant powers bullying us to maintain their prestige.” Nevertheless, the credibility of the aforementioned elections will come under some scrutiny as the two main opposition leaders, Mirhossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi were excluded from the process as they are currently under house arrest. It is no exaggeration to state that the Ayatollah is even more of a hard line figure than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is famed for his poisonous rhetoric against Israel and the west. This is best demonstrated by events of 2009 when Ahmadinejad appeared to favour a compromise solution involving nuclear fuel swap; an idea which was extinguished almost immediately by the Ayatollah.

Needless to say, Iran has no intention of acceding to the pre-conditions favoured by Israel prior to entering any negotiations. The demands include (a) the dismantling of the underground nuclear facility near the city of Qom; (b) to stop uranium enrichment; and (c) to remove all uranium enriched above 3.5 percent from the country (the 3.5 percent level is usually required to power nuclear energy plants). Therefore the spectre of pre-emptive strike looms large although Israel and the US, if the latter is co-opted into a potential military mission, risk violating the UN Charter against the use of force in doing so.


The legality of pre-emptive strikes

Article 51 of the Charter permits the use of force by a State only when it has suffered an ‘armed attack’ against it. This would therefore mean that Israel can only legally launch an attack against Iran only, and only if it has been attacked by Iran. It would be right to argue that in drafting the Charter, its drafters did not anticipate a world in which many nations would have access to nuclear weaponry. The age of nuclear weaponry may have made the Charter redundant in that the victim State stands the risk of being annihilated or severely handicapped if it stands back and allows an initial nuclear attack to be launched by the ‘aggressor state’. This will be the argument forwarded by the Israeli government.


Where do we go from here?

Global affairs pundits, scholars of international law and the International Court of Justice have not provided the clarity sought by most. However the present writer favours the interpretation propounded by the renowned scholar, Yoram Dinstein, in his seminal volume, War, Aggression and Self-Defence. In my opinion he successfully argues that the right to self-defence can be invoked in response to an armed attack as soon as it becomes evident to the victim State (on the basis of hard intelligence available) that the attack is in the process of being mounted. In his opinion, under Article 51, there is no need for the victim State to wait for bombs to fall as it is entitled to intercept the armed attack with a view to blunting its edge.

If this view is accepted as customary international law, then it would appear that Israel and/or the US can legally, based on the evidence of the IAEA as well as the Natanz and Qom nuclear facilities, act pre-emptively without fear of breaching international law. However, one hopes that common sense will prevail before matters escalate any further. Western sanctions have already had a debilitating effect on the Iranian economy with evidence of spiralling inflation and rising food and fuel costs. The worsening economic crisis may lead Iran back to the negotiating table like it has with North Korea, or in the alternative make the Ayatollah even more resolute. What is however certain is that the future will certainly become clearer after next Monday’s meeting between the leaders of Israel and the US.

WEST DECLARES "ECONOMIC WAR" AGAINST IRAN, SAYS IRAN'S ECONOMIC MINISTER

In a move most likely to escalate the entrenched stand-off between the West and Iran, the government of the Islamic Republic announced at the end of the week its intentions to conduct new military exercises in and around the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is particularly vital to the world’s economy as the narrow 34-mile wide (54km) channel located off Iran’s south coast which constitutes a passageway for the transportation of about 20% of the world’s traded oil.

The newly announced military exercises follow a recently concluded series of exercise by Iran’s military in the nearby Gulf of Oman. Iran’s Naval Commander of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, Rear Admiral Ali Fadari, told the Fars News Agency: “Today the Islamic Republic of Iran has full domination over the region and controls all movements within it”. The latest move by Iran was met with derision by the U.K and the U.S. The UK’s defence secretary Phillip Hammond warned Iran against any attempts to restrict oil flow in the Gulf. Mr Hammond stated that any attempts to close the Strait would be “illegal and unsuccessful”. He added: “it is in all our interests that the arteries of global trade are kept free, open and running”. The U.S has also stated that it will ensure that the international waters of the Strait stay open.

The U.S attributes Iran’s announcement of new exercises to the success of the series of sanctions placed against the country in recent years over Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme. Talks between the West, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the West have so far failed to yield any progress or compromises. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has already passed several rounds of sanctions against Iran for the country’s refusal to terminate its uranium enrichment programme which the West alleges is clear intention of its quest to build nuclear weaponry. Sanctions imposed have included asset freezes on key companies and individuals, restrictions on the government’s arms exports and bans on the supply of nuclear related technology to Iran. The EU has also followed this with an asset freeze on several individuals and organisations. In the same vein, the U.S has also sought to tighten the already secure noose by imposing sanctions on numerous Iranian government agencies, officials and businesses.

Perhaps the most damaging actions initiated by the West in its “economic war” against Iran, a term coined by the country’s economic minister, Shamseddin Hosseini, are sanctions authorised by President Obama against Iran’s central bank, which handles Iran’s oil revenue and the oil embargo on the importation of Iranian oil set to be implemented by EU leaders later in the month. As expected, Iran has shrugged off the West’s latest move. In a Tehran news press conference, the country’s foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi stated that the country was “not concerned at all” about the impending EU ban on its oil and that Iran would “weather the storm”. Mr Saleh continued: “Iran, with divine assistance, has always been ready to counter such hostile actions, and we are not concerned at all about the actions”.

If the government of Iran thinks that the West has no intention to follow through on its threats, it will be advised to have a swift rethink. For one, the West has already implemented contingency plans to replace the oil supply produced by the Gulf States if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz. The three-pronged sanctions regime imposed by the UN, the EU and the US is intended to put pressure on Tehran over its nuclear programme. Regardless of the protestations of the government, it is inevitable that the sanctions will further strangle Iran’s already fragile economy. Unrelenting rumours that food and resource scarcity abound and that many have flocked to the country’s banks to withdraw their deposits is indication of the effect of western pressure on the economy of the world’s second largest oil producer. Worryingly, there are no plans for a resumption of talks which collapsed a year ago; however it is hoped that the corrosive rhetoric emanating from the country remains just that, merely rhetoric and if you like, posturing. At present observers roughly seem to be in agreement that Iran is incapable of following through with its threats to close the Strait although one should bear in mind the adage relating to the danger posed by a wounded animal, the animal of course being in this case Iran.

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY ASKS IRAN TO CLARIFY ITS NUCLEAR INTENTION

Perhaps the most predictable conclusion to a report was reached by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog in their summation that Iran had carried out tests “relevant to the development of a nuclear device”.

As a result, the IAEA passed a resolution stating its “deep and increasing concern” about Iran’s nuclear intentions. The resolution also requests Iran to proffer explanations which excludes the possibility of any intention to use its nuclear programme for military purposes. The IAEA however stopped short of referring the matter to the UN Security Council (UNSC).

The compromise resolution was agreed by countries including the US, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany. The resolution is seen by some observers as evidence that the nations significantly involved in the decision-making process of global affairs and matters have the capacity to reach a consensus against the background of the prevarication which have they have previously displayed where situations have called for co-operation by the ‘big 6’.

Cynics will however argue that this effectively ‘watered down’ resolution will do nothing to prevent Iran from continuing its uranium-enrichment programme. The possibility of the imposition of sanctions muted by some permanent members of the UNSC was scuppered by the reticence of Russian and China in voting in favour of the same. The Iranian government however continues to deny that its uranium nuclear-enrichment programme is “specific to nuclear weapons”. Iran’s envoy to the IAEA stated in the aftermath of the publication of the report that its conclusion was politically motivated and that its enrichment programme is geared towards the development of fuel for use in nuclear power stations.

Nevertheless the prospect of a pre-emptive strike by Israel looms large on the horizon. Word emanating from senior members of the Israeli government namely, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister, Ehud Barak and President Shimon Peres indicates as such. Even if Iran is to be believed that its nuclear enrichment programme is not “relevant to the development of a nuclear device”, recent comments by Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khameinei, pledging to “end the Jewish state” certainly do not help matters. As a postscript, 1worldinternational notes that Pakistan attained nuclear capacity in the not too distant past although its conflict with India has not escalated as some assumed.

However, in the present matter, one dreads the repercussions associated with Iran’s intention to attain nuclear capacity as it is inevitable that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states will seek nuclear weaponry arguing that the threat of Iran necessitates such a measure. In view of the latest developments, 1worldinternational will urge its readers to watch this space.