Round The World

New Delhi, 13 November 2013

Iran’s N-Ambitions

CHALLENGES & PROSPECTS

By Prof Arvind Kumar

(Dept of Geopolitics & Intl Relations, Manipal Univ)

The West in general and the United States in particular seem to be desperate in reaching an agreement, which can halt the further development of Iran’s nuclear programme and also contain its strategic ambitions. In Geneva recently, Foreign Ministers of five acknowledged Nuclear Weapon States (NWS), the US, France, China, Russia, United Kingdom and Germany along with Iran met to discuss and negotiate a mechanism under which Tehran would have to commit to forgo its ongoing nuclear enrichment programme. However, as is well-known it has mostly been the US’ effort in seeing how quickly Iran gives up its nuclear option.

There is no denying that there appears to be a growing consensus that Iran will be heading towards overt nuclearisation. It has been signaling a trend to the rest of the world about its intent of exercising its nuclear options. This is mainly to demonstrate its nuclear deterrent capability to its neighbourhood. The articulation of Iran’s threat perception certainly situates it in a precarious position where a covert nuclear weapon State Israel maximizes its interests and portrays itself to be the hegemon in the region. The all weather US-Israel cooperation and advances in research and development base, especially in the field of strategic technologies in Israel is being perceived as a threat to Iran.

It is unfortunate that the high-level interactions on Iran came to an end in Geneva with no agreement on Tehran’s nuclear programme. There remained a stalemate because France opposed and blocked a stopgap deal which was mainly aimed at defusing tension and exploring more time for understanding and negotiations. However, the bi-product of the talks led to an agreement for moving forward in the negotiating process by resuming the interaction around third week of November, but at a lower level – senior diplomats rather than foreign ministers.

Undoubtedly, while the negotiations at Geneva saw concrete progress especially in the context of going beyond the status quo between Iran and the US, there remained stark differences on the approaches to the sensitivities involved. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif also sought to play down the disagreements that had surfaced with France, and the divisions between the six-nation group, known as the P5+1. He was very optimistic and said that despite the differences in views, hope for reaching an agreement exists and this was the only way to move forward. Political will and determination would be required to end such stalemate.

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani stated that its “rights to enrichment” of uranium were “red lines” that would not be crossed and that the Islamic Republic had acted rationally and tactfully during the negotiations. It was to again connote that Iran will keep enriching its uranium but not at the optimum level.

It must be pointed out here that France’s opposition was focused on a draft text agreement, which clearly laid out a short-term deal to slow down or stop elements of the Iranian nuclear programme in return for limited sanctions relief. The French complained that the text, which they said was mostly drafted by Iran and the US, had been presented as a fait accompli and they didn’t want to be part of the agreement.

Iran was in dilemma because the P5+1 had not been able to build consensus, which is inherent in the group’s features as the first step for then only can the negotiations move forward. After all there are six nations having different sets of views. On its part, Iran signaled its intent and made it clear that negotiation would be easier provided there was a consensus on the issues among the nations. A solution to the complex problem can then easily be provided.

However, a pertinent issue between Tehran and the US still remains challenging especially in the context of Iran’s plutonium reactor at Arak, which is scheduled to get activated by 2014 and according to reliable assessment would provide another route to the exercising of the nuclear options. The West and Israel collectively have called for construction work to stop as part of an interim deal aimed at buying time for negotiations on a more comprehensive long-term deal. These are largely the complexities in terms of bridging the divergences of approach.

Iran claims that the purpose of the reactor will be to produce nuclear isotopes that would be useful for medical and agricultural purposes. But, it is being argued that when it gets operational, it would produce plutonium as a by-product after reprocessing its spent fuel, which would pose a serious challenge. It will provide with an alternative route to building a nuclear warhead and will not depend on the uranium enrichment route.

The conduct of Iran in international affairs suggests its clear intentions of projecting itself and its fundamental goals. Technically, it is certainly entitled to a civil nuclear programme. Its strategic ambitions have to be in tandem with the emerging security requirements in the region as well as international principles and obligations. It has over the years been a victim of tough economic sanctions because of its evolving nuclear ambitions. Hence, Iran under the new regime since June 2013 has been seeking an interim agreement in the hope of lifting these.

During the Geneva negotiations, there was certainly a lack of clarity on what nuclear developments Iran would contain and what could be the probable easing of western sanctions. The US in particular has always been putting pressure on Tehran not to enrich uranium to 20 per cent purity, which is close to weapons grade. The latter, since the moderate government took over in June, has been showing a willingness to probably scale down but definitely not stop enriching uranium required for generating nuclear power. This warrants a detailed clarity from both sides. Iran would also need to put all its nuclear facilities under international atomic energy safeguards mechanism as long as it is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and importing nuclear fuel for power generation.

Indeed, the foreseeable future is going to be more complex and tricky. Iran needs to work very closely with the acknowledged nuclear weapon States and declare its intent and the larger goals in the region. It shall need to work for lifting of the sanctions and commit to the path of peace and stability in the region. At the same time, it’s certain that Iran will not afford to get rid of its strategic ambitions in the emerging regional security environment. --INFA   

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)