It is understandable why the two sides are fixated on the question of uranium enrichment. The process is a crucial step toward achieving a controlled chain reaction which is the first step toward producing large-scale nuclear energy – or the bomb. Looking at this picture, it might appear that it is very hard for the two sides to agree on the basics of possible negotiation. The UN would not come to the negotiating table unless Iran halts enrichment and Iran would not come to the negotiating table under the threat of sanctions. A search for a middle ground out of this paradox is in order.

The issue for the Iranians has a lot more to do with national honor than with uranium enrichment. As Mr. Hanizadeh’s remark demonstrates, pressuring Iran on its nuclear program will likely have the adverse effect and cause Iran to lose interest in cooperating with the international community and go its separate way. But that course of action will not be too wise on the part of Iranian policy-makers. For one thing, the Security Council decision also pointed out that if Iran would not comply with Res. 1737, the scope of the current sanctions may be expanded later on, which will very likely throw the parties into a whirlpool of undesirable events.

The Iranian side should therefore see the bigger picture and stop uranium enrichment for the time being. Given Iran’s historical struggle to gain more independence in its domestic and international affairs, diversifying its energy sources is a prudent idea. A robust nuclear energy program can protect Iran for “rainy days” (no pun intended) and allow them access to the sort of technology that holds great promises in a world threatened by greenhouse gases.

On another note, Iran is a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and has expressly denied an intention to produce the bomb. Even though its historical record in that regard upholds this claim (following the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini abandoned Iran’s budding nuclear program under Mohammed Reza Shah because nuclear weapons were “genocidal” and therefore “un-Islamic”), some countries that seemed condescending of nuclear weapons in the past ended up obtaining them. China under Chairman Mao is a case in point (Mao called nuclear weapons “paper tigers” and argued that “wars are not won by weapons but by the people” in the late-1950s and early-1960s. China successfully tested its first bomb in 1964). Iranians should therefore do more than repeat earlier statements and give more concrete assurances about their aims. They have a responsibility to their past and to international peace to halt enrichment in the short run to obtain legitimacy for their program in the long run. A short pause will not harm Iran’s technological development but could work miracles for the peaceful resolution of the current conundrum.

On the other side of the equation, it is crucial for the international community to understand what the Iranians are doing. Their defiance is a real problem because a violation of the NPT regime by a signatory can have catastrophic consequences for non-proliferation and lead to a nuclear arms race – not only in the Middle East, but all around the world – and will end in doom.

If the Iranians are in fact developing nuclear weapons, one must also see how their case contrasts with that of Israel. Israel is not a party to the NPT regime and has had the bomb for decades, much to the disquiet of its neighbors. Even though Israel’s fears of a nuclear Iran are legitimate, so is Iran’s unease with a nuclear Israel. About two weeks ago, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert questioned the legitimacy of Iran’s pursuit of the bomb and rhetorically asked whether Iran having the bomb was the same thing as “America, France, Israel, and Russia” having it (emphasis added).[iii] Even though Olmert’s remarks were quickly “corrected” by his staff (the Israelis have always been ambiguous about their bomb as a strategy), the Iranian government has prudently contrasted its adherence to the NPT with Israel’s total disregard for the non-proliferation regime. In solving the problem, the Security Council has to come up with a more compelling solution by addressing the Israeli dilemma so as to create a Middle East free from nuclear weapons.

At any rate, excessive demands on Iran are unlikely to produce the results that the international community is looking for. Iranians are very sensitive over their national independence. When looking at the twentieth century, Iranians see nothing but Western connivance in manipulating their internal affairs. In this regard, any viable political action must be attuned to these concerns.

Another aspect in breaking the current deadlock must take into consideration that Iran is undergoing a quiet transformation. Last September, as part of his tour for “Dialogue Among Civilizations” in the United States, former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami gave a lecture at the University of Virginia. Even though most of the address was statesmanly platitude, Mr. Khatami made some very interesting remarks in the Q&A session regarding Iran’s domestic politics and foreign policy. For example, when asked about the tirade against liberal university professors by the Iranian government, Mr. Khatami argued that he did not approve President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s discourse, but added that Iran was “democratizing” and that “people were entitled to their opinion.” Mr. Khatami also took the opportunity to point out that Mr. Ahmedinejad had made overtures toward the Bush administration to engage in bilateral talks, which fell on deaf ears. In light of the Hamilton-Baker report on Iraq, which advised the Bush administration (among many other things) to deal with the Iranian government directly, Mr. Khatami’s statement seems more perceptive than ever.

An additional evidence for the degree of liberalization in Iran is even more meaningful, though not as high-level as one would expect. Tehran-based Mehr News Agency reported on Saturday that Mel Gibson’s blockbuster “Passion of the Christ” would be screened at the Imam Ali Religious Arts Museum on Sunday the 24^th. Bearing in mind one of the central Islamic precepts that prophets cannot be graphically depicted in the arts (or that according to the Quran, Jesus was not crucified), Iranians’ forthcoming attitude must not go unnoticed. Iranian civil society is increasingly gaining power to the point that it challenges Islamic dogma. That fact must be noted.[iv]

Most importantly, last week’s elections for the Assembly of Experts and local councils, which delivered an unpleasant surprise to Mr. Ahmedinejad’s conservatives, suggest that the best way to change Iran is to let it change from the inside and leave it to its own devices. It appears that the Iranian people have enough will to warn their government to be careful in the way that they run the country. As a Lebanese editorial argues, Iranians’ move hints that they will not be endlessly manipulated by inept governments and are demanding change more loudly than ever.[v]

Looking at this picture, it might appear banal to say that both sides need to compromise on the issue, but that is precisely what needs to be done. Iran must realize that its ham-handedness in dealing with the United Nations and its obsession with short-term gains (i.e. uranium enrichment) is unlikely to result in any constructive solution to the problem. Western countries, for their part, ought to be aware of the fact that they have to clarify the point that neither Iran’s nuclear program nor its enrichment of uranium is illegitimate. What they have to do is to say that Iran has to persuade the world about its intentions by allowing UN inspectors to all of its facilities. If the Iranians are not after the bomb, they should have nothing to worry about.

+++

Barın Kayaoğlu is a Ph.D. student in history at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia and a regular contributor to the Journal of Turkish Weekly.

E-mail: kayaoglu@virginia.edu

December 25, 2006