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.