Iran Ultimate Defiance

Rachel Neuwirth

Recent developments on Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons merit review and comment. Summaries of news reports follow with comments as noted.

America has objected to offer Iran incentives to limit enrichment of nuclear fuel. The Europeans argued that unless the United States joined in offering incentives, Iran would never seriously consider giving up control of what is called the "nuclear fuel cycle,” COMMENT: This was the European pressure faced by the Americans.

A change in U.S. policy was announced March 11 in an attempt to pursue a joint approach with Europe in negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program. The U.S. agreed to offer incentives in exchange for Iran’s freezing all enrichment activities that could produce bomb grade uranium. The Europeans, in turn, agreed to take the nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council if negotiations fail. COMMENT: The U.S. compromise was intended to present a united front with Europe in the hope that Europe would honor its promise.

The State Department said there is no deadline for the success of the European talks, but stressed that Iran could face Security Council sanctions if it does not comply with the nuclear treaty. COMMENT: Lack of any deadline at this late stage would likely be seen by Iran as further weakness to be exploited.

Iran has voluntarily halted its enrichment activities while it is engaged in negotiations with Britain, France and Germany. COMMENT: How can we be sure of this claim? The C.I.A. has acknowledged that it is unable to obtain good information on what is going on inside Iran.

Iran emphasized that their country would never agree to a permanent cessation of enrichment. But the U.S. negotiator with Europe said that, after some heated internal debate, "the Europeans are now with us in the view that we could never monitor their enrichment activity reliably enough" to ensure that Iran was not producing bomb-grade uranium. COMMENT: To make things more difficult there are repeated reports that Iran has taken measures to disperse and hide their nuclear program (for “peaceful purposed”) including facilities inside very deep tunnels that cannot be monitored.

Several weeks ago, Porter J. Goss, the new C.I.A. director said that Iran was judged to be several years away from producing an actual weapon. COMMENT: As reported above, our inability to reliably monitor Iranian enrichment activity calls into question how the C.I.A. can determine the Iran is “several years away etc. ..”. Israel has warned that Iran is close to a point of no return in its nuclear program and the C.I.A. has previously underestimated weapons progress in other rouge nations. Is this C.I.A. assessment purely objective or partly political?

Some officials in the Bush administration have said they believe that Iran will not agree to give up enrichment, no matter what incentives Mr. Bush offers. They see the president's decision to dangle what amount to modest American economic incentives as part of an effort to speed along the negotiating process so that Iran's intentions become clear. COMMENT: After all this time we are told that incentives are still needed to test Iran’s intentions. Meanwhile Iran buys more time thanks to European dithering just as they did to restrain America in dealing with Saddam Hussein.

When she served as national security adviser, Ms. Condoleeza Rice often said that the question of stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon should be put before the Security Council, but the United States could never muster the votes among the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog. COMMENT: We may be in a political trap. The I.A.E.A. might never vote to charge Iran. And even if they did vote, there is always a potential veto by Russia, China or France to block sanctions. And even if they voted for sanctions Iran’s backers among Russia, China, France, etc. could undermine those sanctions and make a profit in the process. This is what happened when Saddam Hussein successfully defied U.N. sanctions plus a dozen U.N. resolutions over many years. There are too many formidable obstacles to overcome while Iran buys more time.

American officials have said they will insist on a timetable so that talks do not drag on for months or years. Whether the Europeans will announce such a timetable is unclear. COMMENT: Tying the U.S. to a joint approach with Europe also ties U.S. to their timetable and they are reluctant to announce any timetable because it implies their taking action which they prefer to avoid.

Barely one day after the new offer from Europe and America, Iran responded. Neither threats nor incentives will alter Iran's pursuit of its nuclear program; the Iranian foreign ministry said defying new moves by the European Union and the United States to ensure Tehran never develops a nuclear bomb. COMMENT: All of the above posturing is now moot. Iran’s attitude remains defiant and unyielding. They intend to get the bomb. Now what? This is our moment of truth.

###

Rachel Neuwirth, an internationally recognized, political commentator and analyst. She specializes in Middle Eastern Affairs with particular emphasis on Militant Islam and Israeli foreign policy. She has been published in prominent news papers of Europe, Asia and the US. She is frequently quoted by reputable Media. Conversant in Arabic and French.

rachterry@sbcglobal.net