Agence France Presse February 28, 2006
US should consider offering Iran incentives: analysts
With all other options failing, the United States should consider offering Iran incentives to try and find a way out of the current impasse over its nuclear program, experts say.
They argue that a debate at the UN Security Council on the Iran crisis is unlikely to lead to effective sanctions and say that a Russian proposal to end the standoff also appears doomed.
"The trouble is that all of the steps that have been taken so far don't seem likely to produce an acceptable outcome," Gareth Evans, Australia's former foreign minister and current head of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG), an independent think tank, said.
Evans was in Washington Monday to discuss recommendations by the ICG on ways to end the dilemma with Iran.
He said that given the current state of affairs, the only realistic remaining diplomatic option for the United States and its European allies is to offer Iran "delayed limited enrichment" along with a number of incentives.
"Those incentives amount to basically withdrawal of all of the existing sanctions, diplomatic normalization, overt support for WTO (World Trade Organization) accession and of course security guarantees," he said.
As to "limited enrichment", Evans said that would entail the West taking a "deep breath" and recognizing that Iran has the right to enrich uranium domestically to produce nuclear energy.
In return, Iran would have to agree to a number of conditions, including postponing the commencement of its enrichment pogram for a number of years. And the European Union, Russia and China would have to commit to sanctions should Iran reject or violate the deal.
Evans acknowledged that the ICG proposal could be considered by policy makers in Washington as a "capitulation towards the forces of darkness" but he underlined that the alternative would be Iraq-like preventive military strikes against Iran or a situation similar to the one with nuclear-armed North Korea.
Other experts in Washington agree that European-led diplomacy on Iran's nuclear ambitions have proved fruitless and a new, more direct, US approach is needed.
"A policy of simultaneously getting our allies to negotiate with the Iranians for major Iranian concessions while we at the same time condemn them internationally and allocate funds to destabilize them politically is not a policy that will be successful," former US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said last week.
Some, however, are skeptical that any option, barring the military one, would work with Tehran's hardline regime.
"I think we are getting to the moment of truth," James Phillips, an expert on Iran at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank, told AFP. "I think it's a very increasing possibility that this is going to end in war."
He said he believes military strikes against Iran would not only be related to its nuclear ambitions but also to its links with terrorism.
"I think Iran will get caught red-handed again sponsoring terrorism and at that point there is a strong possibility the US will respond militarily, including on the nuclear program," Phillips said.
John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia-based think tank, said he also believes the US will launch selective strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.
He said those opposed to this option were not considering the alternative.
"These are people who have focused on the cost of Iranian retaliation without focusing on the cost of atomic Ayatollahs," Pike said.
© Copyright 2006, Agence France Presse
