New policy needed to stop Iran from going nuclear
12:48 25/01/2011
January 25 (RIA Novosti) - The talks in Istanbul between Iran and the UN Security Council plus Germany may have failed, but at least they weren't boring.
Judging by the initial reports by Iran's Islamic Republic News Agency, Tehran does not think the ball is in its court. Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili said on Saturday that Iran is ready to continue talks with the P5+1 provided they are based on shared logic as well as respect for the legal rights of all nations.
Iran agreed to hold the talks in Istanbul during the previous round in Geneva. In Turkey, Iran rejected the "improved" UN scheme for monitoring its nuclear programs and a separate meeting with a U.S. representative, and also refused to resume talks on shipping its uranium to other countries for enrichment.
In Istanbul, Tehran demanded that the P5+1 countries lift the UN sanctions imposed on Iran on June 9, 2010, and that Iran be allowed to continue enriching uranium. Iran said it is ready to discuss all other issues, including the security situation in the Middle East.
With that, Jalili left the room.
Many countries, in particular the United States, which initiated the UN sanctions, believed that that they were punishing Iran to extract concessions in Geneva and Istanbul. Instead, Iran has punished the six powers, and not only them.
The Iranians prepared diligently for the talks. High-ranking diplomats and officials visited Moscow, Seoul (on the issue of nuclear ties with North Korea), Brazil and other countries last week. On top of that, Turkey, which hosted the meeting, is pursuing a live and let live policy with its neighbors. Iran is its neighbor and economic partner.
Even though many countries refused to say anything specific to the Iranian envoys, Iran achieved the desired effect: it no longer looks like an isolated country suffering from international sanctions. This has undermined U.S. attempts to convince the UN that talks with Iran are impossible without harsh sanctions.
The United States even convinced Russia and China to sign on to the sanctions. While they share Washington's desire not to see Iran as a nuclear power, they have always doubted the efficacy of sanctions. Washington and the EU imposed an additional set of sanctions on Iran.
The Washington Post writes that "while there is no talk for now of UN Security Council new sanctions past a fourth set in June, there have been significant Western efforts to enforce present penalties."
This is logical, as the sanctions that have already been approved are more than sufficient. Moreover, it is doubtful whether sanctions work at all. They failed in Iraq, impoverishing the people while failing to change Saddam's behavior. After 12 years of fruitless sanctions, the U.S. and Britain invaded Iraq in 2003 to overthrow the regime.
Unilateral sanctions are even less effective. Few people now remember that the U.S. imposed sanctions on India to punish it for nuclear testing in 1998. But they did not stop India from becoming a nuclear power, and it is still on course to become the world's third largest economy. By the way, India's program was similar to Iran's.
Iran is working to discredit the UN Security Council. Its official stance is that the sanctions are illegal because they violate the right of Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Moreover, Tehran has been acting within the bounds of international law established by international non-proliferation documents, some of which Iran has signed, and some of which it has not.
The real issue is not whether the Iranian arguments are correct, which they very well could be, given all the loopholes in the non-proliferation regime.
The issue lies elsewhere. A commander in a good army knows that you must never give an order if you doubt that it will be carried out. An impotent UN Security Council is a very, very big problem - a bigger problem than Iran's nuclear program.
A military operation against Iran, similar to UN-approved Desert Storm in 1991, is unlikely, in part because there are no pretexts for launching one: Iraq invaded Kuwait, whereas Iran has not attacked anyone.
In addition, there is not a country in the world willing to send troops to Iran. The United States has not yet withdrawn its troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, which it eagerly wants to do. These wars have bled the U.S. dry, and its allies are already pulling out their troops.
Even if the current Iranian regime were overthrown in a military operation, the result would be chaos like in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran was careful to point out during its recent diplomatic offensive that missile strikes would be as ineffective as those launched against Iraq in 1998.
After the previous round of the talks in Geneva, a high-ranking Iranian official said that Istanbul would be the West's last chance. But there is still a chance. The question is how the West will use it.
The talks in Istanbul have made it clear that the world needs to devise a new plan to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The old one has failed.
The views expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
