Can the Geneva talks become the platform for a grand bargain between Iran and the United States?
The Geneva talks between Iran and world powers offer the possibility of the beginning of a resolution on the subject of Iran’s nuclear program. They might succeed, but they might also run into serious difficulties. However, there are some underlying realities that cannot be negotiated away.
Iran has effectively mastered the nuclear fuel cycle from mining uranium ore through to enriching uranium hexafluoride. If Western regimes fear that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons by enriching uranium, then it’s a bit too late. The revelation of Iran’s second enrichment site near the city of Qom makes this abundantly clear: Even If Iran agrees to halt enrichment at its Natanz plant, it could simply move such work to undisclosed facilities elsewhere. The knowledge and the capability about producing and operating gas centrifuges cannot be taken away or mothballed. Moreover, Iran has in the recent past experimented with less efficient methods, such as laser enrichment, and secret sites for this are believed to still exist underground.
However, a resumption of adherence to the Additional Protocol, signed in 2003 but still not ratified, and full transparency as part of a comprehensive inspection regime and verification plan, could make it much more difficult for Iran to conceal a clandestine weapons program. As such, some of the proposals at Geneva include Iran shipping its output of low-enriched uranium for final processing into fuel rods in Russia or France. The feasibilities and practicalities of this are unclear. It would almost certainly increase costs for Iran and the transportation of the hazardous material could be unsafe and unreliable as well. While a possible solution does not appear to be entirely intractable, whether or not this would be acceptable to both parties remains to be seen.
As far as the West is concerned, there can be no doubt that a nuclear Iran would be disastrous for its interests. It would almost certainly trigger an arms race in the region and beyond leading to the likely collapse of the Non-Proliferation Treaty itself. If Iran developed the bomb, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt would feel obligated to follow suit. Iran could also help allies like Syria, Sudan and Venezuela. The domino effect, therefore, would almost certainly ensue. It is for this reason, as much as anything else that the US and its allies are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
But the program is extremely popular in Iran - a sign of the country’s scientific achievement and also its economic development. According to a telephone poll released by Terror Free Tomorrow last May 52% of Iranians [1], in addition to wanting to reap the benefits of nuclear energy and technology, also desire a nuclear bomb. Flanked by a nuclear Israel and a nuclear Pakistan, two former satrapies in the ancient Persian Empire, many Iranians feel that it would be humiliating for Iran not to have a nuclear arsenal of its own. In addition, while Iran certainly has nothing to fear from Muslim Pakistan, it has every reason to want a deterrent to ward off a belligerent Israel and United States. Non-proliferation simply cannot be discussed in isolation of nuclear disarmament, along with security guarantees that the West does not harbour any hostile intent towards Iran. The recent establishment of a French military base in Abu Dhabi [2] does nothing to inspire any confidence. Iran needs to be persuaded that the Western powers are not a long-term threat to its interests and this only reinforces the siege mentality in Tehran.
As such, any talks at Geneva or in the future have to at some point address wider concerns, and look towards a grand bargain between the United States and Iran because the nuclear issue is really about Iran’s regional aspirations. A lifting of sanctions, along with a trade and Investment deal, and a commitment to begin withdrawing forces from the region and the Persian Gulf, would be a real incentive for Tehran and would make it much more accommodating about its nuclear program and indeed any area of disagreement with the United States. Economic sanctions have not benefited Washington at all. They have instead profited America’s competitors and boosted the black market and the mafia that runs it in Iran. At a time when the United States has to more aggressively market its goods and services to pull out of mounting debt and recession, sanctions against Iran serve no purpose other than to punish American and Iranian producers and consumers alike.
Regarding Israel, and the US insistence on its right to exist, Iran has indeed called for the destruction of the Zionist regime, the world’s only racist state, just as the United States advocated the collapse of the Soviet empire. According to the TFT poll, 62% of Iranians believe in the Jewish state’s extirpation. Rather, Iran envisages a government for both Jews and Arabs alike – a binational democratic state for citizens, and not for members of a race or religion. The two state solution, which has formed the basis of negotiations for 20 years, is doomed since it is not even viable. It is just a repeat of the failed apartheid partition sanctioned by the United Nations in 1948 and has the potential to lead to conflict in the future.
While the Israel lobby in the United States may grimace at the prospect of an inclusive and not exclusively Jewish entity, this appears to be inevitable due to the demographic trends in Israel and the occupied territories. The sooner the American political establishment acknowledges this reality, the sooner any progress can be made which Iran would be probably be willing to support. In the meantime, a non-aggression pact among all Middle Eastern states, including Israel, and a memorandum on the subject of disarmament and non-proliferation might assist in alleviating tensions and building trust.
The United States still lists Iran as the most active sponsor of terror in the world. However, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Iran is doing anything of the sort. It does arm Hezbollah but its Lebanese protégée’s guns are silent and it appears to continue to be transforming itself into a mainstream political force. Druze politician Walid Jumblatt, a prominent critic of both Hezbollah and Iran in the past, has proposed that Iran should arm Lebanon since the United States is reluctant to provide the Lebanese with any arms of consequence that could be used to defend the country against the Israelis [3]. Also, while allegations were rife just a couple of years ago about alleged Iranian support for Shia militias in Iraq and even the Taliban in Afghanistan, there is little talk of this nowadays. This may be because of increased Iranian cooperation or just due to more responsible reporting by the media.
Interference in Iran’s internal affairs is also a major cause for paranoia in Tehran and was all too evident in Iran’s post-election unrest. This was, it appears, the culmination of a $400m destabilization program signed off by President Bush in 2007 seeking to foment a “velvet revolution” using any opportunity with which to do so [4]. By the time Barack Obama had entered office, the plan was already well underway. No doubt the NED, IRI and “Foundation for Democracy in Iran” were eager to do what they could to bring about “soft regime change” by toppling the Iranian leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and replacing it with the “moderate” pairing of Ayatollah Rafsanjani and Mir Hussein Mousavi. The two men’s ties to American and Israeli intelligence go back to the days of the Iran-Contra affair which, as well as being an arms for hostages deal, was also part of an internal power struggle within the ranks of the Iranian government. Political lackeys in the corporate-run media and in the think tanks of academia (Roger Cohen, Martin Fletcher, Juan Cole, Karim Sadjadpour, Ali Ansari and Suzanne Maloney, to name but a few) did their utmost to convey the entirely false impression that the election had been stolen.
Prior to the election, Newsweek had published a “leaked” report from the Iranian Interior ministry that had polls showing Mr Mousavi with a clear majority. A similar “leaked” memo was released following the election to suggest, absurdly, that Mr Ahmadinejad had come in third place. The plan, despite all of the disinformation disseminated, singularly failed to topple the government of Ahmadinejad – the legitimacy of the election of whom is supported by a survey of the Iranian public taken last month by WPO-PIPA. The poll showed that 64% of respondents expressed “strong support” for the President (essentially the same proportion as who voted for him) and 81% regarded him as their legitimate and duly elected president [5].
Then there is the more egregious act of interference: the sponsoring of armed subversion and terrorism in Iran by the US. The CIA had developed ties with ethnic separatist groups in areas such as Iranian Kurdestan and Baluchestan as well as Khuzestan [6]. There does appear to be good evidence to suggest that the Baluchi terror group, Jundollah, has been aided and abetted by CIA operatives working from Pakistan. Ties also exist with the PJAK who operate from Iraqi Kurdestan and launch cross-border attacks on Iranian security forces [7]. If Washington is serious about improving relations with Tehran, and also about combating international terrorism, it has to sever these ties completely and immediately.
Iran and America can agree to disagree: Both have competing but also coinciding interests in the region and beyond. Both vie for influence in the Near East as the Roman and Persian Empires of old did. But this never prevented either state from having relations, constructive or not, with the other. Iran’s defiance of American hegemony has been a cornerstone of the 1979 Revolution but a severance in diplomatic ties was something not originally intended by the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Iran, with some justification, can claim that the United States is its implacable foe determined to end the independence Iran has enjoyed for the last 30 years and its leading role within the Islamic world. The Islamic Republic nevertheless does regard the US Government as legitimate and surely must be prepared for the day when ties are normalised to some degree. The Iranian people, while wary of Washington like their government, do want to see constructive engagement.
This has to be goal of all parties and resolving the nuclear issue is key. This is why the talks in Geneva have the potential to break new and important ground. As history has shown, military action and confrontation in the Middle East is self-defeating and creates more problems than it solves. Another 30 years of strained relations is not an option.
Reza Esfandiari and Yousef Bozorgmehr can be reached at: esfandiarireza@ymail.com.
Notes:
[1]http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf
[2]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602994.html
[3]http://www.emiratestribune.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=268272
[4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRwUZ-u6KFo
[5]http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep09/IranUS_Sep09_quaire.pdf
[6]http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/25/top-jundallah-figure-says-us-ordered-attacks/
[7]http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/51544
Operation Breakfast Redux