nuclear-news

There is a diplomatic avenue that would prevent war with Iran

Now, the West is all but isolated. Most non-Westerners would prefer to see Iran treated like other treaty parties – allowed to enrich uranium in return for intrusive monitoring by IAEA inspectors.

 this gathering crisis could be avoided by a deal along the following lines – Iran would accept top-notch IAEA safeguards in return for being allowed to continue enriching uranium. In addition, Iran would volunteer some confidence-building measures to show it has no intention of making nuclear weapons.

Iran deal would allow West to make U-turn on highway to war, The Age, January 25, 2012 There is little realism behind the demand that Tehran give up its capacity to enrich uranium, writes Peter Jenkins.

The Iranian nuclear controversy is reaching a critical juncture. On Monday, the European Union agreed on an oil embargo as part of sanctions against the country. On Sunday, Britain, the US and France sent warships through the Strait of Hormuz. Recent months have seen a big rise in the twin risks of military action and grave damage to the world economy. This is the consequence of what I believe to be a great diplomatic overbid – the West’s demand that Iran surrender its capacity to enrich uranium.

Nine years have passed since I first talked to Iranian diplomats about
their nuclear program. Then, I was Britain’s representative at the
International Atomic Energy Agency and I disbelieved the reassuring
words of my Iranian interlocutors about their commitment to the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty. At the time, I was all for denying
Iran any capacity relevant to making nuclear weapons. Now, however, I
see things differently.

The treaty prohibits the manufacture or acquisition of nuclear
weapons. But it permits the uranium enrichment that has been at the
heart of the West’s quarrel with Iran. I say ”the West’s quarrel”
because more has changed since 2003 than my beliefs.

Then, almost all the states in the IAEA were angry that Iran had
concealed its research into enriching uranium. They backed the West’s
demand that Iran account for its secret work. And they supported the
West’s view that Iran must suspend enrichment until that accounting
was complete.

Now, the West is all but isolated. Most non-Westerners would prefer to
see Iran treated like other treaty parties – allowed to enrich uranium
in return for intrusive monitoring by IAEA inspectors. My sympathies
lie with the non-Westerners. My hunch is this gathering crisis could
be avoided by a deal along the following lines – Iran would accept
top-notch IAEA safeguards in return for being allowed to continue
enriching uranium. In addition, Iran would volunteer some
confidence-building measures to show it has no intention of making
nuclear weapons.

This, essentially, is the deal that Iran offered Britain, France and
Germany in 2005. With hindsight, that offer should have been snapped
up. It wasn’t, because our objective was to put a stop to all
enrichment in Iran…..

At the moment, we are locked into a process of imposing ever-tighter
sanctions on Iran. This economic warfare has many drawbacks. It
requires an exaggeration of the Iranian ”threat” that fuels the
scaremongering of those who want this pressure to be a mere step on
the way to war. It risks provoking retaliation, while hurting ordinary
Iranians. And it risks higher oil prices, which the West can ill
afford. Moreover, even if Iran were unexpectedly to give way, coercion
rarely delivers durable solutions. Its effect on motives is
unpredictable. It can breed resentment, while restrictions can be
circumvented in time.

It may be asking a lot of our leaders that they swallow their words,
lower their sights and focus on a realistic target. They could do it,
though, and the talks to take place in Turkey could be the setting for
a change of course.

What is much more likely, unhappily, is that we will continue to see a
variant on the devil having the best tunes. Far too many US
politicians see advantage in whipping up fear of Iran. I can almost
hear them sneering that the treaty is for wimps. The odds must be that
they will continue to propel the West towards yet another Gulf war.
Still, nothing is inevitable.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/iran-deal-would-allow-west-to-make-uturn-on-highway-to-war-20120124-1qfiq.html#ixzz1kVa2jvr8

January 25, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international, weapons and war