ROUND THE WORLD

New Delhi, 17 January 2006

Despite Intense Pressure

IRAN’s Enigmatic Behaviour CONTINUES

By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra

School of International Studies, JNU

Iran appears determined to pursue a civilian nuclear programme according to its own sweet will, but simultaneously disregarding the fears and apprehensions of most major powers in the world.

There is not a single country in the international community which feels comfortable to stand with Iran on its nuclear stance. The Muslim neighbours of Iran, all major Asian powers, five permanent members of the UN Security Council and all genuine members of formal and informal proliferation control regimes do not desire to see the emergence of a nuclear weapon power in the Persian Gulf region.

When Tehran expresses its desire to promote nuclear industry in the country for power generation, many raise eyebrows for the simple reason that Iran is an oil and gas rich nation. Nonetheless, none opposes the sovereign right of Iran, a member of the NPT, to develop civilian and peaceful uses of nuclear power.

The problem arises when the Iranian Government seeks to pursue this course on its own terms and conditions. Tehran wants to have a full civilian nuclear fuel cycle at home, which can bring it the perfect recipes for developing nuclear weapons. It vows by its peaceful intentions, but there are many who would not take the Iranian leadership’s statements on its face value.

Iran had been given clean chits many times in the past by the IAEA on its civilian nuclear activities, but the revelations of Iranian involvement in nuclear black market, including the one run until recently by Pakistani nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, have turned Iran into a suspect.

In the face of intense American pressure to punish Iran, three members of the European Union—France, Germany and Britain-- took the initiative to resolve the issue through diplomacy and dialogue. Iran cooperated for a while, but increasingly aired strong views against Israel, made disparaging remarks, issued statements that appeared unfavourable and unacceptable to the Europeans as well.

All these were regarded as Iran’s bargaining behaviour until it first threatened and then implemented its decision to resume uranium enrichment programme, suspended by the predecessor government under an understanding with the IAEA and the international community.

Russian President Vladimir Putin came up with a pragmatic solution to the entire issue by offering to process and enrich uranium on Russian territory and then pass on those to Iran for use in power reactors. For a change, even the hawks in the Bush Administration viewed this proposal as sensible, feasible and appropriate to resolve the issue without resorting to any arms twisting methods.

Iran chose instead to defy the international community and refused to entertain such a proposal. It considered it the sovereign right of the country to pursue a civilian nuclear programme at home. Had sovereignty remained the same as interpreted by Austin, reality would have been different. Sovereignty has assumed different meanings at different times. It needs considerable military might, economic independence and political will to assert sovereignty on ways that may threaten others.

As a matter of fact, the United States, the hyper-power of the globe, also appears caught in the web of global interdependence and cannot afford to dangle its sovereignty card on every issue under the sun. Why is then current leadership behaving like the emperors who claimed divine rights to perform whatever they desired?  Ahmednejad’s behaviour reminds one of Saddam Hussein’s rhetoric during the Kuwaiti crisis. Before the US-led military operations liberated Kuwait, he used to issue statements like “making Americans swim in their own blood”, if they dared attack Iraq and things of that sort.

The Iranian behaviour prompts one to suspect that the country may already have developed a nuclear weapon capability. Some would reject such a view outright. But then who knew that in the midst of international haggling, North Korea on a fine morning admitted and others believed that it had developed the weapon capability? Similar incidents are plenty in recent nuclear history of the world. The world need not be surprised that Iran, which clandestinely acquired certain nuclear equipment from the black market keeping the world in dark for years, could have developed modest capability to make at least one weapon.

The second factor for Iranian nuclear intransigence appears to be the rising energy prices in the world market. Starved of revenues until recently, the country’s treasury seems to have benefited a great deal from the recent oil price hikes. It is less concerned about its economic isolation now then it was earlier.

The third factor is Iran’s belief that it can use the oil weapon to destabilize the oil market further, if sanctions are imposed on the country on the ground of its nuclear policy. In the backdrop of rising energy prices and growing energy demands in the world, Iran’s capacity to contribute to stability in the oil market or cause chaos in it would seriously increase. 

The fourth factor is Tehran’s assessments of the ground situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Years after major military operations were declared to be over by the US and replacement of troublesome regimes in Baghdad and Kabul, the two countries are undergoing a situation where the US and its coalition partners are not comfortable to withdraw their troops. The American GIs, who seem to have got stuck in two sides of Iran—Afghanistan in the east and Iraq in the west—may not attempt to open another front in Iran—so goes the thinking in Iranian governing circles.

Finally, the Russians and the Chinese, annoyed as they may appear with Iranian intransigence, do not appear to have unanimous views with the US and NATO members on the best course to deal with the Iranians. The London meet may not be able to produce a quick fix. Troubling days are clearly ahead.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)