LobeLog on Facebook LobeLog on Facebook

Iran Salehi-Amano-2011

Published on October 12th, 2012 | by Peter Jenkins

13

Back to Basics

Print Friendly and PDF

A recent incident reminded me of the strong emotions that underlie thinking about Iran by some officials and ex-officials in the United States and parts of Europe.

In this instance, an academic who had questioned whether Iran’s safeguards agreement gives the International Atomic Energy agency (IAEA) a right to demand that Iran account for activities not involving nuclear material (a valid question, in my view) was accused of being “the Ayatollah’s lawyer.”

I have come across other instances in which experts declining to assume the worst of Iran’s nuclear intentions have been labelled “apologists” and accused of giving comfort to the enemy.

These incidents and experiences when I was still in active service, suggest to me the existence of a faction that considers Iran a hostile state and sees Iran’s nuclear activities as a threat to national defense.

Is it reasonable to perceive Iran’s nuclear activities as a threat to national defense? Since the end of 2007, the US intelligence community has told us that we cannot assume that Iran’s leaders are determined to acquire nuclear weapons. Other intelligence communities, including Israel’s, appear to have come around to the same view.

Iran’s nuclear research has allowed them to master a technology – enrichment – that can be used for both civil and military purposes, and they possess enough nuclear material to make dozens of nuclear weapons. But one cannot infer from this that they intend to acquire nuclear weapons and are therefore a threat. One can only infer that they have the potential to acquire weapons and are therefore a potential threat – in a world full of potential threats.

Is it reasonable to perceive Iran as hostile to the US and Europe? Iran’s interests and views diverge from ours at many points. Iran believes it was a mistake to tolerate the creation of an exclusively Jewish state in the Levant; we do not. Iran supports the right of Lebanese Shi’a to resort to force in self-defense; we consider Hezbollah terrorists. Iran has longstanding ties to the Syrian government; our sympathies are with the Syrian opposition. Iran is at odds with Saudi Arabia in Iraq and the Yemen; the Saudis are our friends. And so on.

But to be on opposite sides of a dispute taking place on neutral ground, so to speak, is not the same thing as being in a state of hostility. Nations can have conflicting interests and opposing views without being enemies. It happens all the time.

Iran’s official security doctrines imply a defensive, not an offensive orientation. Contacts with Iranian officials suggest that Iran’s leaders find political advantage in demonizing certain Western countries but are not bent on attacking them. If Western intelligence agencies are aware of Iranian plans to start a war against the US, Europe or Israel, it is surprising that this intelligence has not been leaked.

So perhaps one can legitimately say that the case for seeing Iran as an enemy and as a threat to our homelands is unproven.

So what? Perhaps it is unreasonable to see Iran in these terms, but does that matter? Yes, because it colors the Western approach to the nuclear problem. It leads us to place undue weight on the application of pressure to induce Iran to submit to our wishes; to misrepresent evidence to justify additional pressure; and to advance contentious interpretations of Iran’s safeguards agreement, the IAEA Statute, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the UN Charter, to prejudice the international community against Iran and justify measures that harm Iran.

Pressure can of course play a useful role in dispute resolution. It can be necessary. But the dose has to be right. Too much pressure can be counter-productive, stimulating defiance and a determination to concede nothing. Over-reliance on pressure can turn policy into a one-trick pony.

Misrepresenting evidence has been a recurrent feature of the last ten years. In 2002, for instance, we claimed that Iran had no intention of declaring the Natanz enrichment plant because no declaration had been made before construction began; yet at that time Iran was only obliged to declare plants 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material. Last year, we claimed the IAEA had found evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme; yet the evidence, still unconfirmed, was of research into how to make nuclear weapons, not of the construction of weapons.

As for contentious interpretations, they are too numerous to list. One of the most egregious, though, is the claim that Iran may not enrich because it is in non-compliance with the NPT. Not only would an impartial court (if such existed) be challenged to determine that Iran has been in NPT non-compliance since its pre-2004 safeguards failures were corrected; but the NPT is without provision for the forfeiting of rights, and in the 2003-5 period the Europeans fully accepted that Iran’s suspension of enrichment was a voluntary confidence-building measure, not an obligation, as did the IAEA Board of Governors.

A more dispassionate approach would allow us to see the Iranian nuclear problem more clearly, as an instance of past non-compliance with NPT safeguards obligations that has generated distrust in Iran’s nuclear intentions. The problem can be resolved by giving Iran an opportunity to rebuild confidence in its intentions, particularly in its future resolve to respect the NPT.

If the US and parts of Europe cannot bring themselves to take a dispassionate view, they should step aside and allow the lead to pass to states which can be dispassionate. NPT compliance is the business of all 189 states that are NPT parties; it ought not to be the preserve of a handful of states that have axes to grind, still less of a state – Israel – that is not even a party to the NPT.

Print Friendly and PDF

About the Author

avatar

Peter Jenkins was a British career diplomat for 33 years, following studies at the Universities of Cambridge and Harvard. He served in Vienna (twice), Washington, Paris, Brasilia and Geneva. He specialized in global economic and security issues. His last assignment (2001-06) was that of UK Ambassador to the IAEA and UN (Vienna). Since 2006 he has represented the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, advised the Director of IIASA and set up a partnership, ADRgAmbassadors, with former diplomatic colleagues, to offer the corporate sector dispute resolution and solutions to cross-border problems. He was an associate fellow of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy from 2010 to 2012. He writes and speaks on nuclear and trade policy issues.



13 Responses to Back to Basics

  1. avatar Cyrus says:

    It should be pointed out that Iran was not “non-compliant with the NPT” prior to 2003 either. Non-compliance with the NPT should not be confused with breaches of safeguards. Iran had breached its safeguards agreement for “failure to report” otherwise legal activities, but since these involved no “diversion of nuclear material for non-peaceful uses”, there was no violation of the NPT involved. In fact the IAEA specifically stated that the past activities involved no such diversion, and furthermore stated that the previously undeclared activities had “no relation” to any weapons program.

    As for why Iran had failed to report some activities: Iran and the IAEA had agreed to a technical assistance program to develop Iran’s enrichment ability in 1984 (the enrichment program was set up with France, prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.) The US then pressured the IAEA to drop this program, and then pressured other countries to end their nuclear contracts with Iran too — all in violation of the NPT which requires sharing nuclear technology “to the fullest extent possible” and “without discrimination”. After that, Iran resorted to clandestine means to acquire the technology to which it was entitled.

  2. avatar Mehrnaz Shahabi says:

    Thank you Mr Safdari.

    Also, the fact that the alleged “evidence” last year of Iran’s research into weaponisation is “as yet unconfirmed” relates to the re-hashed nature of the allegations that had been discarded by the IAEA in the past. Iran had given access to the IAEA to inspect Parchin military site twice in 2005. The result was the IAEA’s announcement that “Parchin is now history”. However, earlier this year, Iran accepted in principle a re-inspection of Parchin, on the condition that Iran is provided with the documentation of the alleged evidence – which has been withheld from Iran – and for the IAEA to agree to an endgame. These reasonable requests have been refused by the IAEA so that there would be an endless cycle of allegations in relation to “new evidence” and the rehashing of the old allegations.

  3. avatar Joe Griffey says:

    Both Jenkins and Cyrus provide us thoughtful and logical analysis of the Iran situation that basically confirms that the USA and Israel are pursuing their own agenda…the USA is that of global empire buidling and Isreali Zionest are focused on the “Greater Israel”. All Americans have amble evidence of this madness (Christians lost in their religious dogma}, but elect to ignore it. Our entire Washington politico establishment is masking this nationally distructive movement, and more than 80% of “sheeple” Americans are buying it…how sad!!!

  4. avatar Mike says:

    This author and most leftists always forget the number of Americans Iran/Hezbollah has murdered since the 1980s attacks on US Marines/US Embassy all the way though killing US Soldiers in Iraq.

    To forget to mention the dead Americans is a crime.

  5. avatar Maroki says:

    Mike, maybe you do not know that millions of Iranian and Iraqi were killed during the war made up between them self to sell old arms and to test the new ones, the Shah was removed because he didn’t want to start that war.
    Several other millions of Iraqi died in the war of the 90ies after Saddam was pushed in the Kuwaiti trap and in which he was kept till 2003.
    Millions maybe died again after 2003 because of the mass destructions arms which was then proven Saddam didn’t have, (the container load he received from US in the 80ies was given back to UN in the 90ies).
    Maybe you do not know that many people and specially children are now suffering and dying daily in Iraq due to the polluted land and water from depleted uranium from arms used in the last war.
    The American people as well left in the ground of Iraq a lot of Blood and Soul but all this not for the American people benefits. For who’s benefit was it?
    My English is not very good and honestly I do not understand what you mean by saying “To forget to mention the dead Americans is a crime” ?
    Marko

Back to Top ↑