Question about Our Nuclear Diplomacy
By Sadeq Kharrazi, Iran’s former ambassador to France and nuclear negotiator
Discuss our country’s nuclear program will be pointless unless serious questions of the public opinion are answered. The main section of this article addresses nuclear functionaries who must exhibit vigilance when it comes to our national interests. They should appreciate the story of Iranians’ struggle to maintain their independence, and the high price they have paid for the crowing nuclear achievement. History, the fairest and shrewdest arbiter will never fail to notice our behavior. These days, the result of Five plus One meeting in New York has made Iranian officials and domestic media overexcited. For the beginning, let me pose some questions and start elaboration, regardless of shallow political bedlams and partisan clamor and only based on national interests:
- Was the Five plus One meeting expected to result in a final conclusion over Iran’s nuclear dossier?
- Was it expected to toughen the sanctions against Iran?
- Was international disillusionment with Iran’s cooperation with IAEA or its negotiations with Five plus One the reason for such meetings?
- Why are China and Russia at odds with other members of the group? Are they defending our national interests?
- Did the proceedings of Geneva negotiations serve our interests or meet group six’s demands?
I will discuss these questions from my own point of view. Meetings such as the one held in New York have turned into a Five plus One routine. Global powerhouses hold regular sessions to discuss international issues. Key international conventions and institutions, e.g. the UN Charter and UN Security Council, serve their purposes after a consensus is achieved. Meetings are generally held at three levels: representatives (deputies or senior diplomats), foreign ministers or state leaders. A similar session will take place in three weeks in New York at the ministerial level. Three months ago, after the G20 summit in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, Obama, Sarkozy and Brown addressed Iran’s nuclear program in a press conference, repeating their accusations.
Political pressures and official statements have always circulated around Iran’s nuclear program, aimed to influence the course of events, but we have to find out if differences and arguments between Five plus One members are of a strategic or tactical nature. The United States and its European allies stress three points:
1. Constriction of the Iranian government’s extraterritorial fiscal activities;
2. Travel embargo against senior Revolutionary Guards figures;
3. Limiting Iran’s naval activities.
We can’t tie our hopes to the equivocal behavior and comments of Russia and China. Both have supported UN Security Council sanctions against Iran and are playing a dual game with Iran. In the meantime, long-term impacts can’t be overlooked. The United States and Britain don’t seem to be in a hurry for new sanctions. Since the initiation of disputes over the nuclear program, Americans’ strategy was to draw Iran’s dossier to UN Security Council to handle it through a sanction mechanism. Implementation of this strategy has been successful so far.
It is not yet clear whether the US and Europe are trying to impose all-inclusive sanctions against Iran like the ones they implemented against Iraq after the Second Persian Gulf War or Haiti in 1994. Currently they are talking of targeted sanctions which will have economic ramifications for both the state and citizens.
In international politics, sanctions are enough to undermine the prestige of a country. The diplomatic repercussions of sanctions override its legal aspect. United States’ claim that new sanctions will not target Iranian citizens is just a masquerade.
China, that now tries to demonstrate a pro-Iran posture, has previously voted in favor of anti-Iran sanctions in the Security Council. The fiscal constraints it has placed, in addition to flight suspensions, should have captured the attention of Iranian diplomatic apparatus by now.
So far Five plus One, particularly the United States and European countries, have used diplomacy, sanctions and military threats as the three major instruments to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. Washington has acquired a more international perspective during President Obama’s administration. Democrats have made serious efforts to turn bilateral ties with Iran into a global concern. I have to admit that so far, they have succeeded in forming a new alliance against Iran. Besides, once again they have put Iran’s isolation on their agenda. Our behavior in Geneva gave the other side a wrong impression. With all due respect for our negotiators, those talks put us in a plight only mitigated with shrewdness of the Supreme Leader.
I stand in full support for our nuclear negotiators, but the consequence of Geneva talks cannot be forgotten without due analysis of our political elite. Uranium enrichment is not a matter of compromise and any measure taken in the nuclear course should reinforce this fundamental position.
Erdogan’s remarks last week after his return from a visit to Russia show that uranium swap will most likely be accepted by Iran. Any diplomatic deal between Iran and the United States –which will naturally include terms on the volume, location and date of exchange- should not overshadow the enrichment activity. Uranium enrichment, as the pinnacle of our nuclear program should remain intact of threats and reinforced sanctions, whatever Iran’s commitments to the international laws be.
Our return to the table of negotiations should not rely on the tactical maneuvers of China and Russia. We are the inheritors of the glorious Iranian civilization, standing on its feet as thousands of Iranians have sacrificed their life for it. The price our nation has paid for technological achievements should not be ignored with simplistic analysis and immature diplomatic measures.
- Was the Five plus One meeting expected to result in a final conclusion over Iran’s nuclear dossier?
- Was it expected to toughen the sanctions against Iran?
- Was international disillusionment with Iran’s cooperation with IAEA or its negotiations with Five plus One the reason for such meetings?
- Why are China and Russia at odds with other members of the group? Are they defending our national interests?
- Did the proceedings of Geneva negotiations serve our interests or meet group six’s demands?
I will discuss these questions from my own point of view. Meetings such as the one held in New York have turned into a Five plus One routine. Global powerhouses hold regular sessions to discuss international issues. Key international conventions and institutions, e.g. the UN Charter and UN Security Council, serve their purposes after a consensus is achieved. Meetings are generally held at three levels: representatives (deputies or senior diplomats), foreign ministers or state leaders. A similar session will take place in three weeks in New York at the ministerial level. Three months ago, after the G20 summit in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, Obama, Sarkozy and Brown addressed Iran’s nuclear program in a press conference, repeating their accusations.
Political pressures and official statements have always circulated around Iran’s nuclear program, aimed to influence the course of events, but we have to find out if differences and arguments between Five plus One members are of a strategic or tactical nature. The United States and its European allies stress three points:
1. Constriction of the Iranian government’s extraterritorial fiscal activities;
2. Travel embargo against senior Revolutionary Guards figures;
3. Limiting Iran’s naval activities.
We can’t tie our hopes to the equivocal behavior and comments of Russia and China. Both have supported UN Security Council sanctions against Iran and are playing a dual game with Iran. In the meantime, long-term impacts can’t be overlooked. The United States and Britain don’t seem to be in a hurry for new sanctions. Since the initiation of disputes over the nuclear program, Americans’ strategy was to draw Iran’s dossier to UN Security Council to handle it through a sanction mechanism. Implementation of this strategy has been successful so far.
It is not yet clear whether the US and Europe are trying to impose all-inclusive sanctions against Iran like the ones they implemented against Iraq after the Second Persian Gulf War or Haiti in 1994. Currently they are talking of targeted sanctions which will have economic ramifications for both the state and citizens.
In international politics, sanctions are enough to undermine the prestige of a country. The diplomatic repercussions of sanctions override its legal aspect. United States’ claim that new sanctions will not target Iranian citizens is just a masquerade.
China, that now tries to demonstrate a pro-Iran posture, has previously voted in favor of anti-Iran sanctions in the Security Council. The fiscal constraints it has placed, in addition to flight suspensions, should have captured the attention of Iranian diplomatic apparatus by now.
So far Five plus One, particularly the United States and European countries, have used diplomacy, sanctions and military threats as the three major instruments to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. Washington has acquired a more international perspective during President Obama’s administration. Democrats have made serious efforts to turn bilateral ties with Iran into a global concern. I have to admit that so far, they have succeeded in forming a new alliance against Iran. Besides, once again they have put Iran’s isolation on their agenda. Our behavior in Geneva gave the other side a wrong impression. With all due respect for our negotiators, those talks put us in a plight only mitigated with shrewdness of the Supreme Leader.
I stand in full support for our nuclear negotiators, but the consequence of Geneva talks cannot be forgotten without due analysis of our political elite. Uranium enrichment is not a matter of compromise and any measure taken in the nuclear course should reinforce this fundamental position.
Erdogan’s remarks last week after his return from a visit to Russia show that uranium swap will most likely be accepted by Iran. Any diplomatic deal between Iran and the United States –which will naturally include terms on the volume, location and date of exchange- should not overshadow the enrichment activity. Uranium enrichment, as the pinnacle of our nuclear program should remain intact of threats and reinforced sanctions, whatever Iran’s commitments to the international laws be.
Our return to the table of negotiations should not rely on the tactical maneuvers of China and Russia. We are the inheritors of the glorious Iranian civilization, standing on its feet as thousands of Iranians have sacrificed their life for it. The price our nation has paid for technological achievements should not be ignored with simplistic analysis and immature diplomatic measures.