Iran Is Playing Perfect
Interview with Makan Eidipour, international affairs analyst
What is the situation of Iranian’s nuclear dossier at the present?
In politics, sometimes the initial cause loses import in the passage of time. Political issues are in one sense similar to economic partnership. You may have been my rival in the past, but a contract can make us close friends, we can find define interests. But when it comes to security, the story is different. Even international conventions could not change a country’s determination over its security concerns. Now something like the nuclear issue cannot be solved within the diplomatic or political sphere. It is a clear yet complicated thing.
When speaking of Iran’s nuclear issue, we should take the whole nuclear stories across the world into consideration. It is a mistake to isolate Iran’s case, say that Obama has entered the White House, he intends to change the global affairs for better, there is also the economic crisis, America is stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan is paralyzed by Taliban, so Obama will compromise with Iran and give it incentives.
So you agree with those who say that Iran’s nuclear dispute is in fact a façade for the entire Iran-US problems.
Not at all. America entered the uproar before other countries since it is the only superpower and it feels more entitled to object. It is also more irritated by Iran’s assertiveness. So, Iran’ nuclear program is a threat even for a country like Brazil.
Why Brazil?
Iran, in case of going nuclear, could supply Chavez and Castro with military aid. With Cuba and Venezuela becoming militarily stronger, left movements in the Latin America gain momentum. Failure to foil these movements will topple rightist states such as Brazil. So Iran’s nuclearization will be a threat to Brazil, South Africa, Libya, Algeria, Morocco and all other countries.
Then why are countries such as Turkey supporting Iran’s nuclear program? Is it because they have their own nuclearization plans and are using Iran to pave the way?
Not exactly. Of course if Iran becomes nuclear, Turkey’s path becomes beaten. But, the other side of the story is that Iran will object Turkey if it starts its own nuclear program.
So with your argument, Pakistan is opposed to Iran’s nuclearization.
Definitely. As a nuclear power, Pakistan has received many regional incentives which it is definitely unwilling to yield. Pakistan is the United State’s regional gendarme and with Iran’s nuclearization it will lose this privilege.
To return back to Iran’s nuclear program, what should be our analytical framework?
We should start from the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq. For the first time since their face-off, Soviet Union and America united against one country. Throughout the history of international relations, it never happened that to rival superpowers go hand in hand against a small state. This was due to the unique nature of our Islamic Revolution, which I believe was rooted in Imam Khomeini’s special character. The day after the Shah’s regime was toppled, the revolutionaries decided to eschew both East and West. Their non-inclination towards any of the Cold War superpowers created a tough situation in the war with Iraq. Thus it was that during the war, Iraq received weapons from the soviets and money from the Americans.
It was at that time that Iran became aware of its vulnerability and the nuclear program was triggered. Iran could not buy security from either the Americans or the soviets. It couldn’t be a country like Japan, protected by the United States’ nuclear umbrella. So it had to stand on its own feet. In the mid 1980s, Saddam was equipped with a weapon against which we were totally defenseless: the chemical weapons. They turned the tide in favor of Iraq. It were those weapons that stopped us from occupying Baghdad, otherwise, it was only 300 kilometers away from our border. In the last days of war, the Iraqis were distraught. They had lost the classic war and had decided to attack Tehran with chemical weapons and cause another human catastrophe. That’s why we had to compromise.
Twenty years have passed since that war and Iran’s nuclear program has come under spotlight. How do you see West’s treatment of Iran’s activities?
From the very first day, Westerners’ assumption was that Iran was intending to build a nuclear bomb. Of course there was a smaller group that did not think that way.
The world knows about Fordo nuclear facility near Qom. West believes that the site is too small to be used for electricity generation. Hence, it has been used for building bombs. Is that technically valid and acceptable?
To build a 20-30 kilogram bomb, you need ninety-percent enriched uranium. Of course building a bomb is possible with +50% enriched uranium. Therefore, the size of a nuclear facility is not important if you use modern centrifuges.
What situation is Iran’s nuclear program facing now?
Some think that with Obama’s presidency things have changed. His situation is not good as George Bush’s; that is true. But the nuclear game has not changed its rules. The security challenge Iran has created for the United States has not become less, even ten-fold. So what should Obama do? Apparently, he is following Bush’s strategy through more rational tactics.
Do you agree that Obama is testing diplomatic means so if it failed he could form a consensus against Iran more easily?
He doesn’t need the consensus. The United States regards itself as the patriarch who does whatever he thinks is true. And it is not about the sanctions anymore. West has sensed that Iran is only a few steps away from nuclearization. The alarm has ringed for them.
How should Iran and West play?
Iran is playing perfect. Iran is trying to convince the world that it is entitled to enrich uranium. That achieved, Iran will follow the other goals.
You mean Iran is seeking an N-bomb?
Not at all. Iran is looking for a kind of deterrence, what they call ’short notice’. This type of deterrence does not need ninety-percent enriched uranium. It doesn’t need atomic bomb. It needs enriching uranium at a high rate in short-term.
Like Japan and Germany?
Yes. Iran is trying to achieve this deterrent power through it nuclear technology. If you possess the know-how, you have gained the deterrence.
Iran ignored IAEA’s deadline to answer the uranium transfer proposal. Surprisingly, everyone agreed. Why?
Obama –who is a wise man- has acknowledged nuclear Iran. He knows that there are two options. They could either attack Iran with nuclear bombs tonight, or change the regime. This way, they would buy themselves a ten to twenty year breathing space until the next regime finds the self-confidence to resume the nuclear project. But the second option has failed during the past thirty years. Obama has acknowledged nuclear Iran but he wants to stop it from actually producing the bomb. It is allowing Iran to achieve the deterrent power. He will also tell the world that things could have turned worse but we stopped it. This way, Israel and Arabs will also become partly relieved.
Would West accept Iran’s new proposals?
I think they will accept everything, unless Iran acts too tough and inflexible. Whatever they do, Iran has won the game, unless West gets out of its mind and attacks Iran. But that could never happen.
In politics, sometimes the initial cause loses import in the passage of time. Political issues are in one sense similar to economic partnership. You may have been my rival in the past, but a contract can make us close friends, we can find define interests. But when it comes to security, the story is different. Even international conventions could not change a country’s determination over its security concerns. Now something like the nuclear issue cannot be solved within the diplomatic or political sphere. It is a clear yet complicated thing.
When speaking of Iran’s nuclear issue, we should take the whole nuclear stories across the world into consideration. It is a mistake to isolate Iran’s case, say that Obama has entered the White House, he intends to change the global affairs for better, there is also the economic crisis, America is stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan is paralyzed by Taliban, so Obama will compromise with Iran and give it incentives.
So you agree with those who say that Iran’s nuclear dispute is in fact a façade for the entire Iran-US problems.
Not at all. America entered the uproar before other countries since it is the only superpower and it feels more entitled to object. It is also more irritated by Iran’s assertiveness. So, Iran’ nuclear program is a threat even for a country like Brazil.
Why Brazil?
Iran, in case of going nuclear, could supply Chavez and Castro with military aid. With Cuba and Venezuela becoming militarily stronger, left movements in the Latin America gain momentum. Failure to foil these movements will topple rightist states such as Brazil. So Iran’s nuclearization will be a threat to Brazil, South Africa, Libya, Algeria, Morocco and all other countries.
Then why are countries such as Turkey supporting Iran’s nuclear program? Is it because they have their own nuclearization plans and are using Iran to pave the way?
Not exactly. Of course if Iran becomes nuclear, Turkey’s path becomes beaten. But, the other side of the story is that Iran will object Turkey if it starts its own nuclear program.
So with your argument, Pakistan is opposed to Iran’s nuclearization.
Definitely. As a nuclear power, Pakistan has received many regional incentives which it is definitely unwilling to yield. Pakistan is the United State’s regional gendarme and with Iran’s nuclearization it will lose this privilege.
To return back to Iran’s nuclear program, what should be our analytical framework?
We should start from the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq. For the first time since their face-off, Soviet Union and America united against one country. Throughout the history of international relations, it never happened that to rival superpowers go hand in hand against a small state. This was due to the unique nature of our Islamic Revolution, which I believe was rooted in Imam Khomeini’s special character. The day after the Shah’s regime was toppled, the revolutionaries decided to eschew both East and West. Their non-inclination towards any of the Cold War superpowers created a tough situation in the war with Iraq. Thus it was that during the war, Iraq received weapons from the soviets and money from the Americans.
It was at that time that Iran became aware of its vulnerability and the nuclear program was triggered. Iran could not buy security from either the Americans or the soviets. It couldn’t be a country like Japan, protected by the United States’ nuclear umbrella. So it had to stand on its own feet. In the mid 1980s, Saddam was equipped with a weapon against which we were totally defenseless: the chemical weapons. They turned the tide in favor of Iraq. It were those weapons that stopped us from occupying Baghdad, otherwise, it was only 300 kilometers away from our border. In the last days of war, the Iraqis were distraught. They had lost the classic war and had decided to attack Tehran with chemical weapons and cause another human catastrophe. That’s why we had to compromise.
Twenty years have passed since that war and Iran’s nuclear program has come under spotlight. How do you see West’s treatment of Iran’s activities?
From the very first day, Westerners’ assumption was that Iran was intending to build a nuclear bomb. Of course there was a smaller group that did not think that way.
The world knows about Fordo nuclear facility near Qom. West believes that the site is too small to be used for electricity generation. Hence, it has been used for building bombs. Is that technically valid and acceptable?
To build a 20-30 kilogram bomb, you need ninety-percent enriched uranium. Of course building a bomb is possible with +50% enriched uranium. Therefore, the size of a nuclear facility is not important if you use modern centrifuges.
What situation is Iran’s nuclear program facing now?
Some think that with Obama’s presidency things have changed. His situation is not good as George Bush’s; that is true. But the nuclear game has not changed its rules. The security challenge Iran has created for the United States has not become less, even ten-fold. So what should Obama do? Apparently, he is following Bush’s strategy through more rational tactics.
Do you agree that Obama is testing diplomatic means so if it failed he could form a consensus against Iran more easily?
He doesn’t need the consensus. The United States regards itself as the patriarch who does whatever he thinks is true. And it is not about the sanctions anymore. West has sensed that Iran is only a few steps away from nuclearization. The alarm has ringed for them.
How should Iran and West play?
Iran is playing perfect. Iran is trying to convince the world that it is entitled to enrich uranium. That achieved, Iran will follow the other goals.
You mean Iran is seeking an N-bomb?
Not at all. Iran is looking for a kind of deterrence, what they call ’short notice’. This type of deterrence does not need ninety-percent enriched uranium. It doesn’t need atomic bomb. It needs enriching uranium at a high rate in short-term.
Like Japan and Germany?
Yes. Iran is trying to achieve this deterrent power through it nuclear technology. If you possess the know-how, you have gained the deterrence.
Iran ignored IAEA’s deadline to answer the uranium transfer proposal. Surprisingly, everyone agreed. Why?
Obama –who is a wise man- has acknowledged nuclear Iran. He knows that there are two options. They could either attack Iran with nuclear bombs tonight, or change the regime. This way, they would buy themselves a ten to twenty year breathing space until the next regime finds the self-confidence to resume the nuclear project. But the second option has failed during the past thirty years. Obama has acknowledged nuclear Iran but he wants to stop it from actually producing the bomb. It is allowing Iran to achieve the deterrent power. He will also tell the world that things could have turned worse but we stopped it. This way, Israel and Arabs will also become partly relieved.
Would West accept Iran’s new proposals?
I think they will accept everything, unless Iran acts too tough and inflexible. Whatever they do, Iran has won the game, unless West gets out of its mind and attacks Iran. But that could never happen.