Tuesday
Mar302010
Iran: Preventing Tehran from "Going Nuclear" (Ramazani)
Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 7:26 
R.K. Ramazani, one of the leading scholars on Iranian foreign policy, writes for the Charlottesville Daily Progress:President Obama’s greetings to Iran on March 20 on the occasion of the Iranian New Year (Nowruz) rekindled the hope that the United States is still interested in settling its nuclear dispute with Iran through negotiations.
The hope for a new chapter in U.S.-Iran relations began on 1 October, when for the first time since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 the two countries engaged in direct negotiations over the nuclear issue at Geneva.
Iran’s Nukes: False Alarm Journalism (Sick)
UPDATED Iran’s Nukes: The Dangerous News of The New York Times
Alas, three major factors subsequently dampened that hope and increased the tensions between the two countries. First, Iran and the United States disagreed on the amount of Iranian enriched uranium to be shipped to Russia and France for further processing in return for 20 percent enriched uranium needed by Iran for medical purposes. Second, Iran proceeded to enrich uranium to that level on its own.
Third, as seen from Washington, the crisis that followed Iran’s presidential election of 12 June caused Tehran to send mixed messages to Washington because of the rift in the ranks of the Iranian religious and political elites.
Obama’s New Year message, however, is more than a restatement of his commitment to engaging Iran. It posed a serious question to Iran for the first time. He asked Iranian leaders: “We know what you are against, now tell us what you’re for."
The President claimed that Iranian leaders were “unable to answer that question” because Iran had refused to accept fully the International Atomic Energy Agency-brokered proposal of October 2009 on the nuclear issue. Despite media misrepresentation, Iran had not rejected the proposal. It had made a counterproposal, which the United States refused to accept.
To address the President’s question, Iran’s nuclear program must be placed in the context of Iran’s principle foreign policy goals because Iran’s nuclear program is meant to serve these goals.
The first goal is to protect Iran’s political independence and to defend its national security against any foreign attack. The second goal is to project Iran’s influence in the Middle East. Global powers such as the United States seek to create an international environment favorable to their national interest, while medium powers like Iran try to make their regional environment safe.
The Iranian people, as well as their government, claim that they do not seek to achieve these goals by means of nuclear weapons. According to the American World Public Opinion Organization’s report of 7 April 2008, 58 percent of Iranians believe nuclear weapons violate the tenets of Islam and at the same time 81 percent consider “it is very important to have full fuel-cycle program” for peaceful purposes. That organization’s survey of 3 February showed that even the opponents of the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are “strongly committed to Iran’s nuclear program“.
A majority of the Iranian people and their government also claim that they seek to project influence, not hegemonic power, in the Middle East. According to the AWPOO’s report of 7 April 2007, Iranian people want their government to cooperate with, not to dominate, other countries of the Middle East.
If neither the Iranian government nor the Iranian people want nuclear weapons at the present time, does that necessarily mean they will not go nuclear in the future? According to the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate of 2007, Iran is keeping its options open.
The key question therefore is under what circumstances Iran would likely opt to weaponize nuclear energy? If Iran feels its national security is under present and imminent threat of military attack, it is reasonable to assume it would seek to acquire the level of nuclear capability that is necessary for quick diversion to nuclear weapons.
Such an attack could presumably be launched by the United States so long as it insists that all options are on the table. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, however, is skeptical about the effectiveness of striking Iran’s nuclear facilities. He thinks a military attack might only delay its nuclear progress for a couple of years.
Moreover, at the moment the United States is seeking to impose new sanctions on Iran that are tougher than the previous ones. Sanctions by the United Nations Security Council, however, would require the consent of Russia and China. They, especially China, would prefer to continue negotiating with Iran, and the effectiveness of even more biting sanctions is highly debated.
The time is now for Washington to reopen negotiations with Iran. The current U.S. dual-track approach --- tougher sanctions and threats of military attack combined with negotiations --- is apt to degenerate into a one-track strategy of confrontation with Iran if the present tensions escalate even further. That would likely end the prospects of negotiating with Iran in the future. That would be the surest way to a self-fulfilling prophecy - driving Iran to seek national security in nuclear weapons.
Such a development would damage the United States’ interest in non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and prevention of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and it would scuttle the United States’ efforts to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan toward the goal of withdrawing the bulk of the U.S. forces from these countries.
Confrontation with Iran could also lead to a third war front in the volatile Middle East with catastrophic consequences, including the disruption of the flow of Persian Gulf oil supplies to world markets resulting in an unprecedented rise in oil prices worldwide.
Most tragically, it would destroy the prospects of the pro-democracy movement of the Iranian people. If the Iranians feel their country is facing military attack they will rally around the flag, however much they may oppose their government.
Reader Comments (8)
Generally a positive analysis and suggesting a way forward with the continuation of dialogue and negotiations. Unfortunately Obama has so far not demonstrated any actual positive measures apart from hollow Nowruz messages. Iran has been pretty consistent from the beginning that it wants respect for its legal rights and guarantees in any IAEA brokered transaction as the other parties - France and Russia - have not proved reliable and trustworthy in the past. This is a perfectly logical position. It is the war mongers in the West who are mostly in the pockets of or influenced by the extreme zionist element in the Israeli lobby that have monopolised the debate.
The answer to Obama's rhetorical question - “We know what you are against, now tell us what you’re for.” has always been clear from all sections of Iran's Islamic political establishment (including the reformists) 'STOP BULLYING US AND BE FAIR' - that's all.
Obama needs to separate the Iran nuclear issue and Iran generally from the manouverings of the Israeli and Wahabi led Arab lobby and then he will be able to make much clearer decisions leading to actual progress on Iran-US relations who should in actual fact be natural allies as they have many coincidental interests particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan where workng together would prove beneficial to both sides.
He could also throw in the offer of reviving the 1950s US Atoms for Peace programme that originally lead Iran to have a nuclear programmed.
As for internal reforms these will happen in time, for after all things said Shi'ite religious leaders generally put great emphasis in the use of reason in their discourse and tend to be sensitive to any harm done to the image of Islam so in time they will rectify matters. Taking cue from the Shi'ite Imams, they would not like that a Shi'ite government modelled on that of Imam Ali's should become or be perceived as oppressive.
In any case with a population as politically active as Iran's, change will definitely come - the only question is what kind and how peacefully it will happen?
"As for internal reforms these will happen in time, for after all things said Shi’ite religious leaders generally put great emphasis in the use of reason in their discourse and tend to be sensitive to any harm done to the image of Islam so in time they will rectify matters."
Obviously your Shi'ite religious leaders give a d... on the image of Islam, otherwise they would not propagate killing peaceful protesters in public! As it happened some month ago on your beloved IRIB or Seda va Sima (SS), the so-called "national" (melli) TV, rightly renamed into "meyli" (arbitrarily) TV!
And otherwise they would not have settled back, when peaceful protesters were killed on Ashura! The majority of your Shi'ite religious leaders are mere hypocrits, only interested in holding their power and a shame to humanity!!!
"great emphasis in the use of reason in their discourse and tend to be sensitive to any harm done to the image of Islam so in time they will rectify matters. "
Rezvan
we were witnessed their "use of reason" and their "sensitivity" to any harm done to the image of Islam; I am ashamed for what they have done to our innocent people in the name of Islam and frankly it's TOO late to rectify matters !!!!!! people who were Tortured, Raped or Killed and their familiy, all the others in Iran and abroad are bruised for ever; apparently you are "not " and so you are lucky !
Come on ! don't speak about their " use of reason", "sensitivity" and especially their "image"; there is no internal and external "aberou" !
I really did not like this article for the following reasons:
1- Author is siding with the Iranian government positions in general and is accepting their side of story as fact.
2- He is claiming that the position of Iranian people on nuclear power is the same as the government. I have no doubt that Iranian people’s stand on this issue is peaceful, but I have real doubt about the government’s stand on this issue is being peaceful. For this government “survival” means creating crisis inside and outside Iran and live between them and prolong their existence something that they have shown in the last 31 years.
3- Author is suggesting that the whole world should forget the “stick and carrot” diplomacy and start using only “carrot” diplomacy, he claims the first approach will not work because so far it did not work (what a good reason)!
4- He does not elaborate why we should trust that his idea will work and why Iran governments should be trusted for “carrot” approach.
5- He does not see that in the last 10 months a lot has been changed both internally and externally. Internally because of greens and government brutal suppression of this peaceful movement that has taken total legitimacy out of the regime and externally because the whole world now needs peace and stability in the region.
6- Rezvan likes his approach!! For me this is a very good enough reason not to agree with the author as well.
Do not forget that amongst those who died in Kahzirak was the son, Mohsen Rohol Amin, of a IRGC commander. That the majority of those who have been detained are also from the 'religious' classes or backgrounds. Even the MKO uses all the usual symbols of Shia Islam including the wearing of the hejab, which most in this column would be against. The conclusion is that the idiom of Shia Islam colours both the ruling establishment's stance and that of the opposition. Not very different to what has happened in the Christian countries of the West except they have successfully built a political architecture dominated by usually two parties. The right tend traditionally to be concerned with matters of personal morality and choice but have very little time for issues of social justice. Those on the the left exemplify more the social narrative and campaign effectively for enhancement of equality and justice. Again each drawing their general drift from the Judaeo-Christian narrative. Iranians as predominantly Shi'ite Muslims (despite the best wishes of the neo-Khmer Rouge who would want to obliterate Islam if they have their way) need to look within their own narrative and seek expressions and construct a political architecture accordingly allowing a broadly two party system. I think this will eventually happen within the framework of the IR. It is just a matter of time and effort.
@ Rezvan
Your recent entry (#5) about two party system is contradicting your first one (#1) when you are talking about Imam Ali's kind of government. I am copying your first one here:
"As for internal reforms these will happen in time, for after all things said Shi’ite religious leaders generally put great emphasis in the use of reason in their discourse and tend to be sensitive to any harm done to the image of Islam so in time they will rectify matters. Taking cue from the Shi’ite Imams, they would not like that a Shi’ite government modelled on that of Imam Ali’s should become or be perceived as oppressive."
Velayat can not accept political parties and live with them. It is about one valy at a time.
Thank you Kamran , well said; In our country, we have never had multi- parties system and it's time to begin it; I don't know why, Mr Rezvan do you speak about Two parties, in a democratic country there is a lot of kinds of thinking, and Green movement wraps all these tendencies, and after the victory of people it will be divided with a name for each one; Iranian people are like a woken volcano and your regime has to be afraid of its eruption ! because we are countless my dear .
We can only solve the Nuclear issue by being honest in our approach--I remember that on many occasions whenever the U.S. in serious conflict with smaller country -- is always threaten them with the possibility of using Nuclear weapon. In fact, quite reasonaly George W. Bush was threaten to use nuclear bomb against Iran--of course, both Tehran and the rest of the world know that they are not receiving fair treatment from the US.
Furthermore, Tehran also know that; while the US all over them like oil-on-rice they reused to acknowledge that Israel has aleast 10 to 30 nuclear wqr-head whose also hreatening to use them. The only way we can reach a reasonable conclusion is through negotiation by talking to Tehran--instead of looking at it from a geo-regional and lance of power politics as to who will control the Middle East. The US should make every effrts to tell Israel the unacceptable true that; they, too, must first of all stop threaten other nations in the region--and, eventurely get rid of their own nuclear bomb.