Iran’s foreign minister said last week that Iran won’t be sending its enriched uranium out of the country, which the security council nations plus Germany were hoping would help avoid a crisis over Iran’s nuclear program. Does this mean that negotiations were useless, and we should either despair or terminate talks and move towards coercion?
We should not react in those ways nor approach this phase any differently to the previous ones. This was not a formal rejection of the offer, and may be an attempt to gain further concessions. What this episode does tell us is that it’s important for all concerned, including the public, to understand what’s happening and translate this into a sense of resolve. We should be determined to keep moving toward a resolution of Iran’s nuclear challenge undeterred by the smoke of regime intransigence. We mustn’t be misled into appeasement or aggression, which would benefit the hardliners, but persist in trying to get a sensible settlement.
By way of contrast, America’s neoconservatives have started beating the drum for stiffer sanctions, while rubbishing negotiations as a waste of valuable time. Others, such as Jackson Diehl in the Washington Post (4 October 2009), have for some time been spreading defeatism: ‘The Obama administration’s positive tone… following its first diplomatic encounter with Iran covers a deep and growing gloom in Washington and European capitals. Seven hours of palaver in Geneva haven’t altered an emerging conclusion: None of the steps the West is considering to stop the Iranian nuclear program is likely to work.’
What these detractors fail to perceive is that the prism through which they themselves are looking colours the way the issue appears to them, and affects their judgement about how to respond. If the negotiators signal resolve, the other side will have to respond to that. If they signal a weak hand, whether real or imagined, their opponent will take their cue from that, which may alter the actual outcome and make the difference between success and failure.
Iran’s internal situation has created difficulties. The factions are split. Mousavi and Karroubi, defeated candidates in the June election, have spoken out against the reprocessing agreement in order to score points against Ahmadinejad, as has the pragmatic hardliner Ali Larijani who heads a group also opposed to the president. In the light of this situation, some commentators have said that agreement can never be reached because Iran is too divided. What this misses is the possible influence resolute statesmen can have. If the west projects weakness, believes their sides’ defeat is inevitable, it will encourage the factions to continue their in-fighting, perhaps even wilfully, in order to encourage defeatist tendencies in the west. But determination by the 5+1 nations is most likely to unite the factions against the possibility of sanctions, while also holding out to them the possibility of a peaceful resolution, a possible consensus which would exclude only those bent on confrontation.
While the talks so far have not ended in agreement, they have achieved certain positive results. Perhaps the most important of these is an educational one. The six nations, and the world at large, have been treated to a glimpse of the hardliner’s machinations, and it hasn’t made a pretty picture. The regime has been subjected to the spotlight of the world stage, and increasingly seen for what it is, and this has not inspired trust.
One of these is that the 5+1 countries have become more united among themselves. The Russians, who are strong trading partners of Iran, and have been helping the country with the development of its nuclear program, seem to have had their eyes opened by events, and have declared that the opening of the Bushehr nuclear power plant scheduled for this year, will now be delayed. The Russians cite ‘technical reasons’ for this, but it is more likely a subtle means of applying pressure. Russia’s delivery of promised surface to air missiles to Iran have also been delayed.
France has become increasingly harsh in its criticism of Iran’s tactics during negotiations. President Obama, relentless in his diplomatic journeys, has recently visited China. Though pessimism is being spread by some concerning China’s willingness to support sanctions, China, in fact, has supported sanctions against Iran in the past. It has been reported by the merchants of gloom that China doesn’t want sanctions because it believes that negotiation is the way to resolve difficulties. However, this begs the question of what would happen if negotiations fail. Though they find sanctions distasteful, China may support them in the end. While Iran is a growing trading partner of China, often cited as a reason for Chinese resistance to sanctions, the US and other western countries claim a much bigger share of their trade.
There is no reason to give up hope on this issue. If we try and fail with resolve, we’ll know definitively that the diplomatic route doesn’t work with Iran, and can proceed to sanctions with the knowledge that no stone in diplomacy has gone unturned. If we don’t try and give up, we’ll never know, and may miss a chance for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.