Immediately afterwards France sent another strong message to Iran, saying that they would work to set up European sanctions model by the US, if the required consensus could not be provided at UNSC for tougher measures against Iran. The toughening stance on Iran has widely been interpreted as a closer alignment of the French position with that of Washington.

These statements has increased the tensions with Iran and caused reactions in western world. As we may know the latest time table agreement between Iran and IAEA had soften the tougher sanction idea in the EU and also in other members of P5+1 Russia and China.  While the US, the UK and France seek for a tougher economic sanction decision in UNSC, other members of the EU and P5+1 group (especially Germany, Russia and China) defend the idea of diplomatic process in the current picture. In their point of view, the recent initiative taken by Iran to cooperate with IAEA and to enlighten the Agency about the ambiguous and problematic aspects of her nuclear program is a major step. So that, they prefer to apply the wait and see rule at the moment in which they can see the sign of hope for a diplomatic breakthrough. That’s why most of the EU countries reacted to Sarkozy and Kouchner’s harsh explanations which can endanger the current cooperation process among Iran and IAEA. Those explanations have the capacity to highlight the divisions in the west on the Iranian nuclear issue.

Different Backlashes towards the French Statements

The talk of war with Iran and this new position of France faced a sharp reaction from Mohammad El-Baradey, head of IAEA who is trying to solve the N-dispute. He said that “There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons.”[1]

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned against the use of force in Iran and against unilateral sanctions to pressure Iran for its peaceful nuclear program. “We are convinced that no modern problem has a military solution, and that applies to the Iranian nuclear program as well” Lavrov said after talks with Bernard Kouchner[2].

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao strongly criticized the anti-Iran statements made by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and he underlined that in international affairs “We should avoid threatening others with military actions.”[3]

While German foreign ministry spokesman Martin Jäger said “It’s not right to talk of threats of war”, he also added that he did not regard Kouchner’s statements as a “threat of war”. On the other hand government spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm said in Berlin that the French government was correct in its assessment that “there are all the elements of a very serious obligation on the international community and that we must do everything possible to ensure that Iran does not become nuclear armed.”[4]

Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen said that the Netherlands would support EU sanctions if the UNSC failed to agree on new measures but would not be drawn on any talk of military intervention. “The first effort should be to convince the Security Council to apply more sanctions,” Verhagen said. “But when the Security Council doesn’t agree, I am willing to apply EU sanctions in combination with the US sanctions”[5].

While Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik said that she can’t comprehend why Kouchner is resorting to such martial rhetoric at this time, the French Prime Minister Francois Fillon also tried to soften the aggressive language by insisting that there was still room for diplomacy[6].

 
The Reactions Came from the Iranian Side

The state-run IRNA news agency wrote in an editorial that, since Mr. Sarkozy became the president of France and moved into the Élysée, France had changed course and was reflecting the same policies as the US. It asserted that Mr. Sarkozy’s government was creating obstacles as Iran and the IAEA moved toward resolving Iran’s nuclear file.

Vice-President Reza Aghazadeh who is also the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, told the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Western countries “have always chosen the path of confrontation instead of the path of understanding and cordial relations.” He also added that “While Iran and the IAEA are cooperating to remove ambiguities concerning the country’s nuclear program, some countries launch unreasonable and obstructionist attacks on Tehran.” [7]

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the comments by French Government officials suggesting possible war over Iran’s nuclear program were a propaganda move and should not be taken seriously.[8]

The Foreign Ministry said France’s credibility had been damaged by Kouchner’s warning over the increasing risk of an armed confrontation over the controversial Iranian nuclear program[9]. Iran Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini after stating that the use of such words creates tensions and is contrary to the cultural history and civilization of France, he also added that they expect France to adopt a more realistic stance.

General Assessment

Those Statements show that France has been trying to accelerate the tension before the UNSC meeting and triggering other members of P5+1 for tougher economic sanctions against Iran. She may also try to encourage the EU to back new sanctions against Iran, outside of the UN Security Council, to pressure Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions. It seems that current French Government supports the tough sanctions that should be accompanied by a policy of isolating Iran which is absolutely contrary to the European Union’s engagement policy and close to that US’ containment policy. But if we consider the fact that EU has begun to follow the path of coercive diplomacy instead of engagement policy since 2006 in the Iranian nuclear dispute, it makes sense that a tougher economic sanction decision could be taken in UNSC. Or if the tougher sanctions will not work, again it makes sense that some EU countries may join the US block to take more strict additional measures against Iran. But at the moment all efforts being done to accelerate this process is untimely and inappropriate. Because, currently there is an ongoing agreement between Iran and IAEA. So that it seems logic to wait for the result of this new initiative and if it does not work looking for tougher levels.

Bernard Kouchner emphasized “credible” sanctions as the best tool that the West has to resolve the nuclear standoff diplomatically. While he had caused some tension by discussing the prospect of war with Iran; after the harsh backlashes both from different circles within his country and international platform he later softened his tone.

Some experts believe that the shift in French’s foreign policy may be considered as the new goal of French Government to play the leadership role in the EU. But there is no doubt that this new policy will also bring new disagreements within the EU. On the other hand the main goal of Sarkozy to get France to be taken seriously again seems to be in a wrong path by making such harsh announcement.

In contrast to the US, which has no shared economic interests with Iran due to long-standing sanctions, France has strong ties with Iran. There are several large French companies such as Renault, which has production in Iran and expect a rate of 300,000 cars a year, and Total, Europe’s third-largest oil producer which owns a 30% stake in a liquefied natural gas venture in Iran. It is clear that such kind of explanations and this tough stance can endanger the economic ties of these French companies with Iran. So this shall also be a problem within the France. Many circles in France are aware of the fact that
Iran has huge natural gas resources like Russia, and without Iran-Russia gas, the future of European energy supplies will be at risk. That’s why Kouchner was criticized within his government because of his warmongering statements against Iran. 

 
Consequently it can be said that the new stance of France which is more close to the US, seems to bring many different impacts. It is well known that there is a disharmony and reluctance in regard with adopting the common positions and common actions within the EU due to national interest priorities of the member states. That’s one of the main obstacles of common foreign and security policy (CFSP) of the EU. But it has observed that the EU member states managed to take a similar position in regard with the Iranian nuclear crisis so far. There were many reasons driving these countries to be in a common position. First, the decision to moderate the US unilateral and aggressive policies in the region and not to experience another Iraq case, second; not to experience the same failure in CFSP as they had in Iraqi case and not to be divided into two separate blocks. Third, taking the responsibility of solving the crisis both to gain a reputation for CFSP and keep the war away from the country which they have vital economic interests. All those reasons were the driving factors behind the decision of being in a common position in Iranian nuclear crisis. On the other hand the Iranian nuclear crisis is a prestige matter for the EU. They have taken the responsibility of solving the issue to prove that the EU is a global actor and has the ability to handle the international crisis. Taking in consideration all those facts, the new different stance of the France may endanger this process and bring many disagreements within the EU and finally creating the same atmosphere as the Iraqi crisis for them. So we have to wait and see that whether the history will repeat itself or not.

Arzu Celalifer Ekinci

International Strategic Research Organization

Middle East Studies Centre

celalifer@yahoo.com