Author : Colonel GG Pamidi,

NEED OF THE HOUR: DIPLOMATIC ENGAGEMENT, NOT ISOLATION

By Colonel GG Pamidi*

"War is the continuation of politik by other means" – Carl von Clausewitz

The dramatic announcement made on 15 February 2012 in front of television cameras by the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about the achievements allegedly made by Iran in his country’s nuclear technology has added fuel to the ongoing debate about Iran’s purported desire to develop nuclear weapons. Iran’s nuclear program is one of the most polarising issues in one of the world’s most volatile regions. While American and European officials believe Tehran is planning to build nuclear weapons, Iran’s leadership says that its goal in developing a nuclear programme is to generate electricity without dipping into the oil supply it prefers to sell abroad, and to provide fuel for medical reactors[1]. While the progress made by Iran is certainly noteworthy, it merits a detailed analysis. What are the facts?

The Basic Facts

All that is now apparent is that Iran has developed nuclear fuel rods and a new generation of centrifuges. The Iranian-made fuel rods are made out of 20-percent enriched uranium, which is the enrichment required for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) which is a civilian reactor. The new generation of centrifuges is supposedly made of carbon fiber and have been claimed to perform three times as fast as the third generation centrifuges. In no way does this translate into a weapons grade fuel, at least, at this stage.

Iranian Rationale

Iran has claimed that this is needed to supply enriched uranium for four of its new reactors that are being planned to be constructed in four corners of the country for further research work and producing electricity and medicines. It is significant that Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said that Iran is ready to share its nuclear know-how with other members of the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA)[2]. It also needs to be acknowledged that in the same press conference Iran had stated that two years ago, “it had told western countries that if Iran is not provided with the fuel rods for its research reactor, then Iran would produce its own. At that time, the western countries did not believe that, now, the Iranian nation proved that they can”[3]. This, at best, can be construed to be nationalistic pride meant more for its domestic populace than a military threat

Reactions by the International Community

There has been mixed reaction to the latest announcements made by Iran:-

• US. The US has reacted skeptically and the state department spokesperson said, “It seems to have been hyped. The Iranians have been putting out calendars of accomplishments, and based on their own calendars, they are many, many months behind."[4] 
• The European Union (EU) The EU has confirmed that they have received a letter from the Iranian government offering to restart the talks and that they are studying it. As things stand, till as late as January 2012, the 27 nations of the European Union increased pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme by agreeing to ban oil imports. Under the deal, EU members have agreed not to sign new oil contracts with Iran and to end existing ones by July 1, 2012[5]. Up to now, some 400 Iranian assets in the continent have been frozen and 113 people subjected to visa ban and asset freeze.
• China. China appears to be desirous of a diplomatic solution as evidenced by the statement of its Assistant Foreign Minister Wu Hailong “China believes the Iran nuclear issue should be resolved peacefully through dialogues and negotiations, and that sanctions and military means will not fundamentally address the problem,"[6]
• Russia. Russia appears to be seriously worried about the prospect of a military action against Iran and is said to be doing all it can to prevent it. Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister recently said that "The consequences will be extremely grave, it's not going to be an easy walk. It will trigger a chain reaction and I don't know where it will stop."[7]
• Arab Countries.  Arab   regimes   share   a   belief that Iran is using its civilian nuclear program as a pretext to develop a nuclear military capability[8]. To that extent, they are extremely concerned about Iran’s nuclear programme.
• Israel. Israel views the Iranian nuclear programme as an existential threat. While publicly, there have been many statements advocating a military strike against Iran, many professional opinions are against it too. A former high ranking Israeli official said in a closed seminar at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) that time remains to explore non-military options against Tehran, including negotiations with Iran’s government, covert action and most importantly, levying harder-hitting sanctions on the Islamic Republic’s ailing economy[9].

Options for Conflict Prevention: “All Options on the Table”

There have been allegations and counter allegations from both sides. What is a fact is that there have been a series of assassinations of top Iranian nuclear scientists and, recently, there have also been a series of bomb attacks against Israeli diplomats in different parts of the world. Since investigations in all these incidents are still on-going, it is premature to comment anything on these, except to condemn them in the strongest possible manner.

The term, “All Options on the table”, is a not-so-oblique way of threatening war. This is a dangerous spiral and needs to be treaded with extreme caution. The burden of proof rests, in any event, with those who would urge war. Two of Iran’s uranium-enrichment sites are underground; there are two significant reactors and another being built, and possibly other important sites that are unknown[10]. In these circumstances, no one can confidently predict what aerial bombardment would achieve by way of damage or delay to Iran’s over-all nuclear timelines. And the costs of any such attack are much easier to describe than the benefits. For Israel, those costs would certainly include heavy retaliatory rocket and missile strikes by Hezbollah and Hamas against Israeli civilians, a wave of popular anti-Israeli upheaval in Egypt, and the prolonged inflammation of Iran’s nuclear nationalism. A regional war involving Lebanon, Syria, and oil-producing Gulf emirates would also be a possibility.

The latest failure to secure an agreement must not be taken as a total loss. The IAEA issued a statement on 22 February, 2012 which said that despite intensive discussions, the two sides could not sign a document which could have clarified whether Tehran's nuclear programme had a military dimension. “Intensive efforts were made to reach agreement on a document facilitating the clarification of unresolved issues in connection with Iran's nuclear programme, particularly those relating to possible military dimensions. Unfortunately, agreement was not reached on this document.”[11]

Conclusion

Diplomatic engagement is the only realistic path for ultimately resolving the Iranian nuclear issue. Misunderstandings and the lack of communication have often contributed to the outbreak of war in the modern era-from Vietnam to Iraq[12].  Iran has chosen to deliver a mixed response to the latest visit by the IAEA team. Iran's permanent representative to the Agency Ali Asghar Soltanieh has said that Tehran would hold further talks with the IAEA over its civilian nuclear programme. However, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast has acknowledged that the latest round, concluded on 21 February 2012, would likely have a bearing on the proposed dialogue with the six global powers. 

To prevent war, there is an urgent need to establish lines of bilateral communication at all levels; between military forces in the region, between diplomats, and between senior officials[13]. It would help if the world community is willing and inclined to offer some significant incentives to Iran; such as cast-iron security guarantees and full WTO membership[14]. After all, it is not if Iran has already acquired the nuclear weapon, a fact now accepted by all. Iran has a young population and a large middle class. A policy of engagement is bound to yield better results in weaning Iran off its belligerence.

Endnotes