West, Not as United as Some Assume
There is a rift over Iran’s nuclear program which some European states may see as an opportunity. By Ali Musavi Khalkhali
Leaking to media, the news of Iran’s second uranium enrichment facility triggered a fracas across the world. Things became worse when on the sidelines of Pittsburgh G20 summit, leaders of Britain, France and the United States denounced Iran. Their attack on Iran revealed three key points, all which certify that the international community –and even West- does not know how to treat Iran and it suffers a discord inside.
One: first of all, it became quite clear that Western countries –especially those active in Iran’s nuclear case- suffer a rift. While all parties involved in nuclear talks with Iran had attended G20 summit, it was only Gordon Brown, Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy who stood by each other to criticize Iran’s efforts to construct a second uranium enrichment facility. They accused Iran of hiding its nuclear activities and deceiving the world and called for more stringent sanctions, but beside them stood neither Angela Merkel nor Silvio Berlusconi.
In an individual remark which didn’t receive extensive media coverage German Chancellor Angela Merkel asked Iran to provide IAEA officials with information about its second nuclear facility; a lenient stance which received Iran’s positive answer. On Saturday night Tehran announced that it will allow IAEA inspectors to visit its new enrichment facility. The Italian Prime Minister took no stance however. Berlusconi preferred to remain silent and look at the tumult run by other leaders.
This was so glaring that in an article on 26th of September, Washington Post questioned the behavior of European countries, asking where Merkel and Berlusconi were when Sarkozy, Obama and Brown took a united stance against Iran.
The behaviors show that despite what many observers believe, the rift is wide inside Western countries. There are European countries which may prefer the gap to become wider so they could take their desired advantage. To this should be added the position of Russia and China. Despite the concern expressed by Russians over Iran’s second uranium enrichment facility, Moscow’s stance on Iran’s nuclear program is clearly supportive. China insisted on the futility of sanctions up to Friday nights and believed in diplomacy as the only solution to the dispute over Iran’s nuclear case.
Second: despite predictions, as a political entity, the European Union prefers silence and has taken no united stance. Sweden, as the current head of the European Union did not make any remarks, rather its representatives listened to Ahmadinejad’s UN speech to the last minute. Norway was also acted the same while Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu bashed countries who stayed at the hall during the Iranian president’s speech. Sweden and Norway responded by saying that they saw no negative point in the words of Ahmadinejad and he did not pass the red lines of Holocaust and Israel.
Scandinavians’ behavior showed that not only these countries do not follow Britain and France, but also they act in the opposite way. Regarding Sweden as EU current president, we can even say that EU is not in line with France, Britain and the United States. They may be thinking of a future different from what some Western countries envisage. In case of severed ties between Iran and France or Britain, these countries can fill their vacant place in diplomatic and economic ties with Iran.
Three: it also seems that the U.S. diplomatic apparatus, the key political player of the world in the last 50 years, has lost its characteristic expertise. Obama stood behind the lectern on Friday while he seemed shocked with the news of Iran’s nuclear facility. That is while CIA claims it knew of Iran’s intention to build a second enrichment facility near Qom since 2006. That makes Obama’s Friday behavior really questionable.
On Friday, Obama took a harsh stand against Iran, intensified with his Saturday’s indirect threatening of Tehran to military. U.S. president’s tone cooled down in the afternoon when he said that his country is ready for serious talks with Iran.
More than anything, such remarks show Obama’s immaturity in diplomacy. If we add Hillary Clinton’s stance, we can say that even inside the diplomatic machinery of the United States, there is difference over Iran’s nuclear program. Since Obama’s position against Iran has been relatively milder compared with Hillary Clinton, this can be regarded as a non-harmony between different parts of the U.S. diplomatic apparatus rather than United States positive signal to Iran’s permission for IAEA visit of nuclear sites.
At any rate, we can surely say is the confusion in the Western front against Iran. Some may say that a few days before Five plus One and Tehran talks, West avoids irritating Iran. The question rising here is that: Is West so week to be afraid of irritating Iran before the talks?
One: first of all, it became quite clear that Western countries –especially those active in Iran’s nuclear case- suffer a rift. While all parties involved in nuclear talks with Iran had attended G20 summit, it was only Gordon Brown, Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy who stood by each other to criticize Iran’s efforts to construct a second uranium enrichment facility. They accused Iran of hiding its nuclear activities and deceiving the world and called for more stringent sanctions, but beside them stood neither Angela Merkel nor Silvio Berlusconi.
In an individual remark which didn’t receive extensive media coverage German Chancellor Angela Merkel asked Iran to provide IAEA officials with information about its second nuclear facility; a lenient stance which received Iran’s positive answer. On Saturday night Tehran announced that it will allow IAEA inspectors to visit its new enrichment facility. The Italian Prime Minister took no stance however. Berlusconi preferred to remain silent and look at the tumult run by other leaders.
This was so glaring that in an article on 26th of September, Washington Post questioned the behavior of European countries, asking where Merkel and Berlusconi were when Sarkozy, Obama and Brown took a united stance against Iran.
The behaviors show that despite what many observers believe, the rift is wide inside Western countries. There are European countries which may prefer the gap to become wider so they could take their desired advantage. To this should be added the position of Russia and China. Despite the concern expressed by Russians over Iran’s second uranium enrichment facility, Moscow’s stance on Iran’s nuclear program is clearly supportive. China insisted on the futility of sanctions up to Friday nights and believed in diplomacy as the only solution to the dispute over Iran’s nuclear case.
Second: despite predictions, as a political entity, the European Union prefers silence and has taken no united stance. Sweden, as the current head of the European Union did not make any remarks, rather its representatives listened to Ahmadinejad’s UN speech to the last minute. Norway was also acted the same while Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu bashed countries who stayed at the hall during the Iranian president’s speech. Sweden and Norway responded by saying that they saw no negative point in the words of Ahmadinejad and he did not pass the red lines of Holocaust and Israel.
Scandinavians’ behavior showed that not only these countries do not follow Britain and France, but also they act in the opposite way. Regarding Sweden as EU current president, we can even say that EU is not in line with France, Britain and the United States. They may be thinking of a future different from what some Western countries envisage. In case of severed ties between Iran and France or Britain, these countries can fill their vacant place in diplomatic and economic ties with Iran.
Three: it also seems that the U.S. diplomatic apparatus, the key political player of the world in the last 50 years, has lost its characteristic expertise. Obama stood behind the lectern on Friday while he seemed shocked with the news of Iran’s nuclear facility. That is while CIA claims it knew of Iran’s intention to build a second enrichment facility near Qom since 2006. That makes Obama’s Friday behavior really questionable.
On Friday, Obama took a harsh stand against Iran, intensified with his Saturday’s indirect threatening of Tehran to military. U.S. president’s tone cooled down in the afternoon when he said that his country is ready for serious talks with Iran.
More than anything, such remarks show Obama’s immaturity in diplomacy. If we add Hillary Clinton’s stance, we can say that even inside the diplomatic machinery of the United States, there is difference over Iran’s nuclear program. Since Obama’s position against Iran has been relatively milder compared with Hillary Clinton, this can be regarded as a non-harmony between different parts of the U.S. diplomatic apparatus rather than United States positive signal to Iran’s permission for IAEA visit of nuclear sites.
At any rate, we can surely say is the confusion in the Western front against Iran. Some may say that a few days before Five plus One and Tehran talks, West avoids irritating Iran. The question rising here is that: Is West so week to be afraid of irritating Iran before the talks?