Time to Change Our Strategy
Harsh rhetoric and paradoxical measures cannot serve our nuclear interests. It is time to think of a new strategy. By Javid Ghorban-Oghli
.jpg)
IAEA’s first resolution against Iran’s nuclear program in four years has once again brought the issue into the sight of the international community. Iran’s response was unfortunately as hasty and imprudent as IAEA’s resolution. Ordering the construction of ten nuclear enrichment sites was not at all consistent with Iran’s behavior in the past two month, when initiatives in Geneva and Vienna parleys led to agreements and were about to break the nuclear impasse.
Of course, we should not forget that Ahmadinejad’s administration has pursued an atypical, paradoxical and idealistic policy towards the nuclear program which has given rise to misunderstandings and complicated the nuclear dispute. Decision-makers in the nuclear story have wrongly decided to tie our nuclear program to other global concerns while we should disentangle this case from irrelevant issues. Our focus should be on a compromise with global powers that directly or indirectly have a stake in resolution of this complicated story. Of course an intelligent interaction needs veteran diplomats.
Iran’s unusual language in response to IAEA resolution and the show-off decision of constructing ten new nuclear enrichment facilities will merely complicate the future of nuclear negotiations. For us, there is no doubt that Iran’s nuclear program has not deviated from its peaceful purposes, but if we believe that Western countries are demonizing our country, we should not provide them with any pretexts.
United States approach vis-à-vis Iran
Since Obama’s presidency, the United States has pursued a calculated, smart plan vis-à-vis Iran, either in nuclear negotiations or normalization of ties. With its last year record, Obama has proved himself to be a supporter of peaceful negotiations and unconditional talks. We have seen Obama taking practical steps when he set aside all the stipulation of his predecessor for talks with Iran. The world has not left Obama’s step forward unnoticed. On the other hand, propagandistic remarks by Iran will push Obama towards the AIPAC lobby and neo-conservatives and that is no doubt against Iran’s nuclear interests.
There was a lot of hoopla after the Geneva negotiations and Iran’s chief negotiator, Said Jalili was appraised in Friday prayers and also by Ahmadinejad. The talk between Jalili and Bill Burns was an unprecedented move that happened for the first time in the 30-year life of the Islamic Republic. The question is that if it was a correct measure why wasn’t it pursued?
Of course I believe that in Geneva and Vienna, due to their weakness, Iranian diplomats lost the game to West and now, aware of their mistakes, are trying to turn over the table instead of correcting their mistakes. Nearly everyone inside Iran was against the agreements made in Geneva and Vienna to hand low-enriched uranium to Russia, France and the United States. It is not yet clear who had made this decision due to the government’s policy of non-transparency. I have said before, we don’t know who the insider is and who is an outsider in the nuclear story. Non-transparency in the nuclear negotiations serves the country no good, since the project needs popular support which cannot be gained by merely chanting ‘nuclear energy is our inviolate right’ slogans.
Russia and China’s support
With the increasing complication of the nuclear case, we lost two lukewarm supporters, Russia and China, two world powers that at least tried to moderate the tone of IAEA and Security Council resolutions. They voted against Iran in the latest sitting of IAEA Board of Governors due US and Israel pressures and our paradoxical behavior after the Geneva and Vienna talks. With their vote, Russia and China acted in favor of West and supported its decisions despite the economic incentives they have received from our country in the recent years. Iran, on the other hand, has basked in the triumph of Non-Alignment Movement annual statement in support of Iran’s nuclear program. The government should better explain the behavior of Russians and Chinese after all the bonuses they have received.
If the current trend continues, the United States and other Western countries find a better chance to form a united global front against our country. The next step may be passing a fifth resolution against Iran in the UN Security Council. That would just add to the complications. At the current circumstances, the biggest mistake would be to make a harsh response and adopt a belligerent tone. If we have any retaliation plans, we should do it in a low-key manner. Talking of minimizing the level of cooperation with IAEA and withdrawal from NPT at the heat of the dispute –while it is clear that such threats will not be realize- will just tarnish our international image.
Yesterday, Mohammad ElBaradei handed his position in IAEA to Japanese Yukiya Amano. During his term, ElBaradei tried to keep the balance between Iran and West. Undoubtedly, the new chairman will tilt towards Western countries. It is clear that instead of running propaganda and contradictory rhetoric it is better for the government to implement strategies which serve the interests of our nation.
Of course, we should not forget that Ahmadinejad’s administration has pursued an atypical, paradoxical and idealistic policy towards the nuclear program which has given rise to misunderstandings and complicated the nuclear dispute. Decision-makers in the nuclear story have wrongly decided to tie our nuclear program to other global concerns while we should disentangle this case from irrelevant issues. Our focus should be on a compromise with global powers that directly or indirectly have a stake in resolution of this complicated story. Of course an intelligent interaction needs veteran diplomats.
Iran’s unusual language in response to IAEA resolution and the show-off decision of constructing ten new nuclear enrichment facilities will merely complicate the future of nuclear negotiations. For us, there is no doubt that Iran’s nuclear program has not deviated from its peaceful purposes, but if we believe that Western countries are demonizing our country, we should not provide them with any pretexts.
United States approach vis-à-vis Iran
Since Obama’s presidency, the United States has pursued a calculated, smart plan vis-à-vis Iran, either in nuclear negotiations or normalization of ties. With its last year record, Obama has proved himself to be a supporter of peaceful negotiations and unconditional talks. We have seen Obama taking practical steps when he set aside all the stipulation of his predecessor for talks with Iran. The world has not left Obama’s step forward unnoticed. On the other hand, propagandistic remarks by Iran will push Obama towards the AIPAC lobby and neo-conservatives and that is no doubt against Iran’s nuclear interests.
There was a lot of hoopla after the Geneva negotiations and Iran’s chief negotiator, Said Jalili was appraised in Friday prayers and also by Ahmadinejad. The talk between Jalili and Bill Burns was an unprecedented move that happened for the first time in the 30-year life of the Islamic Republic. The question is that if it was a correct measure why wasn’t it pursued?
Of course I believe that in Geneva and Vienna, due to their weakness, Iranian diplomats lost the game to West and now, aware of their mistakes, are trying to turn over the table instead of correcting their mistakes. Nearly everyone inside Iran was against the agreements made in Geneva and Vienna to hand low-enriched uranium to Russia, France and the United States. It is not yet clear who had made this decision due to the government’s policy of non-transparency. I have said before, we don’t know who the insider is and who is an outsider in the nuclear story. Non-transparency in the nuclear negotiations serves the country no good, since the project needs popular support which cannot be gained by merely chanting ‘nuclear energy is our inviolate right’ slogans.
Russia and China’s support
With the increasing complication of the nuclear case, we lost two lukewarm supporters, Russia and China, two world powers that at least tried to moderate the tone of IAEA and Security Council resolutions. They voted against Iran in the latest sitting of IAEA Board of Governors due US and Israel pressures and our paradoxical behavior after the Geneva and Vienna talks. With their vote, Russia and China acted in favor of West and supported its decisions despite the economic incentives they have received from our country in the recent years. Iran, on the other hand, has basked in the triumph of Non-Alignment Movement annual statement in support of Iran’s nuclear program. The government should better explain the behavior of Russians and Chinese after all the bonuses they have received.
If the current trend continues, the United States and other Western countries find a better chance to form a united global front against our country. The next step may be passing a fifth resolution against Iran in the UN Security Council. That would just add to the complications. At the current circumstances, the biggest mistake would be to make a harsh response and adopt a belligerent tone. If we have any retaliation plans, we should do it in a low-key manner. Talking of minimizing the level of cooperation with IAEA and withdrawal from NPT at the heat of the dispute –while it is clear that such threats will not be realize- will just tarnish our international image.
Yesterday, Mohammad ElBaradei handed his position in IAEA to Japanese Yukiya Amano. During his term, ElBaradei tried to keep the balance between Iran and West. Undoubtedly, the new chairman will tilt towards Western countries. It is clear that instead of running propaganda and contradictory rhetoric it is better for the government to implement strategies which serve the interests of our nation.