KB
05-13-2005, 01:01 AM
Iran: The Comfort Zone Between the United States and Europe
Summary
The European Union warned May 12 that it would refer Iran to the U.N.
Security Council if Tehran carries out its threat to resume uranium enrichment. Iran shot back that it would resume its nuclear activities when it is ready. For different reasons -- but both having to do with the United States -- the Europeans and the Iranians are creating a false crisis, one that will soon fizzle.
Analysis
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said May 12 that his government would support an initiative to take Iran to the U.N. Security Council if Tehran violates its commitments to the European Union's Big Three regarding its nuclear program. Separately, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said his government hopes that Tehran understands the serious implications of resuming the enrichment process. The same day, the secretary-general of Iran's Supreme National Security Council confirmed receiving a letter from EU-3 foreign ministers and EU Foreign Policy Adviser Javier Solana, warning of negative consequences if Tehran chooses to make good on its threat to process uranium.
Hassan Rohani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, responded to all these threats by saying that the talks with the EU-3 are not acceptable in their current format and that Tehran has decided in principle to resume its nuclear activities. He said only the timing and the details have yet to be sorted out.
Despite Iran's threat and Europe's counterthreats, the two sides will come to a mutually acceptable agreement on how to defuse the heightened tensions. This will happen because, in a bid to achieve their separate goals, they have created a false crisis. By threatening to take the issue to the Security Council, the Europeans want to establish their way of dealing with Iran as the prime international strategy -- rather than the U.S. method of treating negotiations as a precursor to possible military action.
In this current round, Iran has emerged on top -- and not only because it has successfully driven a wedge between the United States and Europe on the issue. The United States has depended on the European Union -- specifically the Big Three countries of Britain, France and Germany -- to quietly settle the standoff, and not drag the entire Security Council (including, of course, Russia and China) into the fray. Furthermore, although Washington has stressed that it does not plan to use force against Tehran over the nuclear issue, the Iranians do not take these assurances at face value. However, if and when the issue makes its arduous journey through the Security Council, Washington would be virtually powerless to attack -- having damaged its credibility at the United Nations with regards to intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, it could not steer the resolution in the direction of using force. Hence, Tehran also succeeded in getting the military strikes option off the table.
Two issues stand out here as anomalies. First, if Iran really intended to push forward with its nuclear program, it would not announce this to the world; it would follow the example of Israel, India and Pakistan and act discretely. Second, the Europeans know that, even if they did refer Iran to the Security Council, there is no guarantee a resolution to sanction Iran would pass, given current U.S.-Russian tensions over Washington's drive into Moscow's geopolitical orbit. The Kremlin could always veto the move. In fact, the statement by a Russian nuclear official that Tehran's intentions to resume nuclear activities are "legitimate," and that Iran does not pose a security threat because it will use its uranium enrichment program peacefully and within the guidelines of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), makes the Russian position quite obvious.
Assuming the resolution did somehow pass, it would have few real and immediate consequences for Iran, as it would involve dispatching a team of IAEA inspectors to verify the claims that Iran has violated an international treaty -- a process which would take at least a year to complete. The Europeans know this, and yet they have issued the threat in order to seize the initiative on the issue from the United States by showing the international community -- and the folks at home -- that they can be tough on Iran. Blair, who laid out his strong stance on Iran just a week after his Labor Party won a third term in office (but not by a decisive margin) could very well be looking to show some strength at home, and some distance from Washington.
Meanwhile, the military threat to Iran from Israel also seems to have receded. Senior Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi have said Israel has no plans to deal with Iran militarily. The Israelis, in fact, appear to be mulling over the possibility that they might have to live with a nuclear Iran.
This leaves the Iranians in a very comfortable spot. They have skillfully negotiated their way into a position in which they do not have to worry about the United States and Europe joining forces against them -- and they also have put the military option on the back burner.
Summary
The European Union warned May 12 that it would refer Iran to the U.N.
Security Council if Tehran carries out its threat to resume uranium enrichment. Iran shot back that it would resume its nuclear activities when it is ready. For different reasons -- but both having to do with the United States -- the Europeans and the Iranians are creating a false crisis, one that will soon fizzle.
Analysis
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said May 12 that his government would support an initiative to take Iran to the U.N. Security Council if Tehran violates its commitments to the European Union's Big Three regarding its nuclear program. Separately, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said his government hopes that Tehran understands the serious implications of resuming the enrichment process. The same day, the secretary-general of Iran's Supreme National Security Council confirmed receiving a letter from EU-3 foreign ministers and EU Foreign Policy Adviser Javier Solana, warning of negative consequences if Tehran chooses to make good on its threat to process uranium.
Hassan Rohani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, responded to all these threats by saying that the talks with the EU-3 are not acceptable in their current format and that Tehran has decided in principle to resume its nuclear activities. He said only the timing and the details have yet to be sorted out.
Despite Iran's threat and Europe's counterthreats, the two sides will come to a mutually acceptable agreement on how to defuse the heightened tensions. This will happen because, in a bid to achieve their separate goals, they have created a false crisis. By threatening to take the issue to the Security Council, the Europeans want to establish their way of dealing with Iran as the prime international strategy -- rather than the U.S. method of treating negotiations as a precursor to possible military action.
In this current round, Iran has emerged on top -- and not only because it has successfully driven a wedge between the United States and Europe on the issue. The United States has depended on the European Union -- specifically the Big Three countries of Britain, France and Germany -- to quietly settle the standoff, and not drag the entire Security Council (including, of course, Russia and China) into the fray. Furthermore, although Washington has stressed that it does not plan to use force against Tehran over the nuclear issue, the Iranians do not take these assurances at face value. However, if and when the issue makes its arduous journey through the Security Council, Washington would be virtually powerless to attack -- having damaged its credibility at the United Nations with regards to intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, it could not steer the resolution in the direction of using force. Hence, Tehran also succeeded in getting the military strikes option off the table.
Two issues stand out here as anomalies. First, if Iran really intended to push forward with its nuclear program, it would not announce this to the world; it would follow the example of Israel, India and Pakistan and act discretely. Second, the Europeans know that, even if they did refer Iran to the Security Council, there is no guarantee a resolution to sanction Iran would pass, given current U.S.-Russian tensions over Washington's drive into Moscow's geopolitical orbit. The Kremlin could always veto the move. In fact, the statement by a Russian nuclear official that Tehran's intentions to resume nuclear activities are "legitimate," and that Iran does not pose a security threat because it will use its uranium enrichment program peacefully and within the guidelines of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), makes the Russian position quite obvious.
Assuming the resolution did somehow pass, it would have few real and immediate consequences for Iran, as it would involve dispatching a team of IAEA inspectors to verify the claims that Iran has violated an international treaty -- a process which would take at least a year to complete. The Europeans know this, and yet they have issued the threat in order to seize the initiative on the issue from the United States by showing the international community -- and the folks at home -- that they can be tough on Iran. Blair, who laid out his strong stance on Iran just a week after his Labor Party won a third term in office (but not by a decisive margin) could very well be looking to show some strength at home, and some distance from Washington.
Meanwhile, the military threat to Iran from Israel also seems to have receded. Senior Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi have said Israel has no plans to deal with Iran militarily. The Israelis, in fact, appear to be mulling over the possibility that they might have to live with a nuclear Iran.
This leaves the Iranians in a very comfortable spot. They have skillfully negotiated their way into a position in which they do not have to worry about the United States and Europe joining forces against them -- and they also have put the military option on the back burner.