A month of deadlines for Iran may answer little

Emile Hokayem

• Last Updated: September 03. 2009 2:05AM UAE / September 2. 2009 10:05PM GMT

A month of diplomatic efforts directed at Iran has begun and promises to become more contentious. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published its mandatory report on Iran’s nuclear progress last week and on Tuesday, Iranian TV reported that the Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili “has prepared a new nuclear proposal and is ready to resume talks on its nuclear programme”, the seriousness and details of which are still unknown. Yesterday, top diplomats from each of the UN Security Council’s permanent members and Germany met in Frankfurt to discuss the next steps on multilateral diplomatic efforts before the UN General Assembly on September 15th.

@body arnhem:First, the facts as the nuclear watchdog has outlined them: the IAEA criticised western nations, noting that restrictions on sharing their intelligence on Iran was complicating the job of its inspectors. But the report does not amount to a clean bill of health for a country suspected of an ambition to acquire a nuclear programme for military use. The IAEA report is peppered with observations such as “there remain a number of outstanding issues which give rise to concerns, and which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme”. This body of suspicion “is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed that it needs to be addressed by Iran with a view to removing the doubts which naturally arise about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme”.

More worryingly, the report notes that Iran has not shared requested information about its testing of high explosives and multiple detonators and that it has barred inspections of workshops where a missile re-entry vehicle was allegedly manufactured. Both projects would be indispensable ingredients in the development of nuclear warheads.

The quick takeaway from the report is that Iran is expanding its enrichment capability and deepening its nuclear expertise but is not yet producing highly-enriched uranium to build a nuclear device. In doing so Iran is perhaps shrewdly maintaining ambiguity about its nuclear intentions as it steadily approaches nuclear capability.

Some had expected the report to contain even tougher words for Iran but suspect that the outgoing head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, has omitted some information relating to Iran’s nuclear progress. Mr ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 and whose assessments of Iraq’s nuclear status proved accurate in the run-up for the 2003 Iraq war, has indeed consistently underplayed the Iranian threat that he said “has been hyped” two days ago.

His supporters allege that a campaign to discredit him is guided by western and Israeli hawks, while his critics suggest that his distrust of the US and Israel colours his assessments. But in the last IAEA report on Iran in his tenure, the international community nevertheless put the onus squarely on Iranian shoulders.

It is in New York later this month that this drama will unfold. The US president Barack Obama has given Iran a September deadline to respond to the West’s offer of renewed negotiations, and it is likely that Mr Jalili’s announcement paves the way for another by the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his speech to the UN General Assembly. In anticipation that Mr Ahmadinejad’s remarks will amount to nothing more than an attempt to delay increased pressure, western diplomats are gearing for a new round of sanctions, the topic of yesterday’s meeting in Germany.

But even in the Obama era of global engagement, multilateral diplomacy has not become any easier. Pressure on Iran to stop its enrichment activities depends largely on the goodwill of Russia and China, two powers still unimpressed by the western sense of urgency. In fact, the “Death to Russia! Death to China!” shouts heard in Tehran during protests in June may have had the effect of having Moscow and Beijing come closer to the Iranian regime for fear that any replacement would prove less amicable to their interests.

It is no wonder that the US administration is struggling to put a new package together that includes sweeter carrots for Iran. But to allay Israeli fears and counter accusations of weakness, this must be backed by a prior multilateral agreement on tougher sticks.

Then there is the question of what coercive action short of force could twist Iran’s hand. For the West, the answer is more sanctions, but Iran has shown resilience under such pressures. The new big idea is to restrict Iran’s imports of petrol on which the country is so dependent. The problem is that Iran is reducing this dependency and has proven very adept at circumventing sanctions. And it is not just the proponents of unconditional engagement of Iran that oppose such measures. Even the hawks are unconvinced. They argue that sanctions will only delay the day of reckoning (read, the use of force) and give Iran the time to cross the nuclear threshold. In any event, there is little international support for a maritime blockade to Iranian petrol imports and a unilateral effort by the US and a few allies would amount to a declaration of war.

Alternatively, how can the West provide the Iranian regime a lifeline when it is under intense internal pressure? And can a divided political elite in Tehran even agree on a response to western engagement? Isn’t the West setting up its diplomatic effort for failure by setting a firm deadline when it knows that little can be expected in return? There is no easy option for the US when both an overture and a showdown risk shoring up a regime struggling for legitimacy.

Indeed, the nuclear track may not be completely isolated from the political turmoil that engulfs Iran. The nuclear programme, which once enjoyed the support of many Iranians, may even come to be viewed as the ultimate defence of a despised regime rather than a symbol of national prestige.

Diplomacy is a frustrating, uncertain dance, and the lesson may be that the goodwill professed by the Obama administration may not be enough to overcome the complex interests at play.

ehokayem@thenational.ae