Let’s look over a global policy based on a paradoxical framework and the changes occurred due to the fluctuations in the world’s balance of powers. Using this theorem will be helpful to understand the Iran’s nuclear issue that has engaged the world’s agenda nowadays.
It will be noteworthy to remind that the first nuclear reactor was given to Iran by the U.S (United States) in 1967. It was a 5 Megawatt trigger research reactor under the Eisenhower Atoms for Peace Program[1]. Following this, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 that gives her the inalienable right to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without restriction, and acquire equipment, materials and scientific and technological information. The nuclear program was triggered by the U.S and after a report prepared by Stanford Research Institute putted it out that Iran would need, by the year 1990, an electrical capacity of about 20.000 Megawatt the Shah announced his policy of 23.000 Megawatt of nuclear energy. Here is the paradoxical point that to be underlined. The U.S’s reaction against this policy was pretty amazing. They did not say that “why would Iran need nuclear energy by all these rich oil and gas reserves?” They said that this interesting approach shows that Iran’s economy is moving forward and becoming modern. And despite of suggesting that Iran would need several nuclear reactors to acquire the electricity capacity proposed by Stanford Research Institute, also expressed their interest of participation in Iran’s nuclear projects and wanted to be the sellers of nuclear reactors.
The construction of nuclear power plants in Iran has been contemplated for more than 30 years. The Shah argued that hydrocarbon resources would be too valuable to burn by the beginning of 21st century and most of Iran’s electricity generation must be supplied from nuclear power plants by then. He started an ambitious program in cooperation with the US and many European countries. Later on the Shah’s nuclear policy was halted by Ayetullah Khomeini at the beginning of the revolution but after Iran - Iraq War the need for electricity generation for reconstruction of the war-damaged economy was inevitable. By the time it is important to say the U.S’s impulsive nuclear policy turned to a preventive policy after the revolution due to the hostile rapprochements of both parties?
Today, Iran has a population more than 70 million and the country produces about 4.1 million barrels of oil a day which about 1.5 million are consumed domestically. It is the fact that Iran is the second largest oil producer in OPEC. But it has to be considered that its energy needs are rising faster than its ability to meet them. Iran’s power consumption is growing by around 7 % annually and its capacity must triple over the next 15 years to meet projected domestic demand[2]. On the last years of the Shah’s government Iran had a population about 35 million and produced about 6 million barrels of oil a day. Hence, it is estimated that, by the year 2010, Iran will need another 7.000 Megawatt of electricity which even under the best possible circumstances such as immediate lifting of the U.S. sanctions and flow of vast foreign investments into Iran’s oil and gas industry, cannot be produced by gas and oil alone. Here is the data and here is the logic. The current Western policy does not support the need of reactors for necessary electricity and other peaceful aims in Iran anymore. On the contrary, their carrot and stick policy force Iran to halt her activities and to renounce of her previously given rights.
Presently, the issue of Iran’s right to exercise its "inalienable right" to nuclear technology, per Article IV of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, merges with the notion of national autonomy and freedom. In the Iranian context, this is just another way of saying that the current Western attempt to alienate Iran from its nuclear rights affects Iranian identity and, if successful, would throw this identity into a crisis. This policy creates an interesting solidarity among both Iranian conservatives, modernists and even the dissidents around the world. Another vital factor for Iran is an independent policy. If you operate reactors but cannot produce your own fuel rods, you are dependent on others. Why do you have to import the nuclear fuel instead of producing in your own country within the legal framework? This will both create new labor opportunities and improve the country’s economy. On the other hand; Iran is allowed to process and enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Iran’s uranium-conversion activities in Esfahan under IAEA monitoring poses no threat.
Latest Development and Important Players’ Approach
Earlier this month, the EU (European Union) offered a wide-ranging package to Iran, including economic, political and technological incentives, in return for the complete suspension of activities related to nuclear fuel production. But Iran, which insists it has the right to a civilian atomic energy program, rejected the offer due to the unfair characteristic of the package and the U.S threatened the country by explaining that all options including military attacks are on the table. There was also a resolution of IAEA requested Iran to quit its activities but the resolution was rejected by Iran too. IAEA Director Muhammad el-Baradei will provide a comprehensive report on the implementation of Iran’s Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, as well as the new resolution, by 3 September.
Despite of its counter policy toward Iran’s nuclear program, Bush’s administration has in recent months decided to subcontract its Iran strategy to Europe. However, the American President’s recent threat of using military strike option against Iran seems to be more a psychological deterrent than a real one at least at the short-term. There are many reasons behind this change, currently; the U.S. army cannot afford the launch of another large-scale military operation after the Iraq War. As there is a trust problem concerning the legitimacy of the U.S’s preemptive policy, Washington will face problems to convince her citizens for another strike. Other important issue is the huge burden of Iraq war on U.S economy. They will need a period of time to compensate and another war will not be a realistic attempt. Apart of this, both the U.S and the UN nuclear watchdog have failed to find any evidence of irregular nuclear activities in Iran. And compared with Iraq, Iran is of much bigger national strength and cohesion, and possesses ballistic missiles capable of striking Israel and U.S. military bases in the Gulf. Another point to be kept in mind is, scattered and concealed nuclear sites of Iran, which makes it very difficult for any country to completely destroy them even by surgical strikes. In the case of any strike they will have the ability to rebuild the sites.
China and Russia also could frustrate any Western effort to contain Iran’s nuclear research program. Beijing and Moscow have strong economic ties with Iran. China, for example, in late 2004 signed a 25-year deal, worth potentially $200 billion, to import liquefied natural gas from the giant South Pars field in Iran. Meanwhile, the Russian military-industrial and nuclear complex benefits from large-scale contracts with Iran, including a deal covering construction of the Bushehr nuclear facility, and potentially several additional reactors. Both countries condemn Iran’s actions, but they will not put an end to their economic relations with Iran. Of course the chance of a resolution to pass from the UN Security Council would be difficult because of the veto right of these two countries.
Could it be a Double Standard?
Certainly we have to evaluate all dimensions of the issue and take in consideration all related data to make a neutral analysis. The dangerous characteristic of the nuclear weapons and the misusage of the nuclear powers are undeniable and the concerns can be understood. But why the Western countries give priority to Iran that is a member of NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty) and had chosen to pursue a transparent and cooperative policy with IAEA, instead of North Korea that obviously explained her nuclear weapons and ended up its NPT membership? On the other side there are India and Pakistan who also have nuclear weapons and made nuclear experiences in 2002. They were subjected to a few sanctions at the first stage but suddenly all western countries including U.S began to make cooperation with them. Earlier this year, The U.S announced an agreement with India to strengthen the utilization of nuclear energy in its energy mix. The last example could be given is an Israel with more than 200 nuclear weapons.
There is a fact that Iran failed to maintain a reliable portrait during the first decade of its newly established Islamic Revolution. And again it was the fault of Iran to postpone the transparency process of her nuclear activities and creating suspects among the international actors. It shall not be forgotten that it is Iran that has to create confident, cooperative ties with the countries in the Middle East region to strengthen its credibility. Iran shall improve her regional policies and trying the chances for alternative coalitions.
It has to be mentioned that Iran has chosen the open and cooperative dialogue way and the Western countries should try to integrate Iran to the system instead of driving her away. Doubtless it will be better to let Iran to pursue her activities under the international control system of IAEA and encourage her by different economic and technologic partnership alternatives instead of preventing its peaceful activities. An Iran under the control and an Iran as a part of international system is much safer than an isolated Iran. Furthermore, it can be said that just stick policy cannot serve the aims. Carrot policy should be used as a balancing factor.
Conclusion
The situation in Iraq is developing its own dynamics, Afghanistan and Palestine on the other hand. Therefore the EU should consider what it can do to stabilize the region and of course to balance the unilateral foreign policy of the U.S, not only because it is geographically tied to the region, but also because of the potential negative repercussions for its Common Foreign and Security Policy. With the worsening situation in Iraq, neither the three EU countries nor the U.S are ready to start a new war area. This fact has been understood by the Iranians. They also will use the nuclear program negotiations for a bargain concerning stronger relations with EU and getting better concessions. On the other hand they will try to prepare a proper ground for possible U.S attempt for cooperation by using smart diplomacy. Especially during this period of history in which an Iranian balance factor could be used for a problematic Iraq and to solve the Shi’a – Sunni conflict in the region. Lastly, the U.S needs to stop confronting Iran about a non-existent nuclear weapons program, and accept as a reality the full-scope of the desired Iranian nuclear energy program, provided it is carried out in accordance with international law and carefully monitored by international inspectors. Lifting economic sanctions and establishing relations with the government in Tehran, in exchange for Iranian agreement to exerting a moderating influence on the Shi’a of Iraq, is the best possible hope for the U.S in minimizing the spread of radical, anti-American Islam in the Middle East.
Arzu Celalifer is a Researcher at Center of Middle East Studies ,ISRO/USAK
