Israel Hayom | In Istanbul nuclear talks, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
|
Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, at the talks in Istanbul, says, “Iran only knows the language of cooperation.”
|
Photo credit: Reuters
|
ISTANBUL – In 1998, the world awoke one morning to a new reality. Without drawing too much attention from the media, Pakistan became the first Muslim country to develop a nuclear capability.
India, its neighbor and longtime rival, was not the only country that expressed dissatisfaction over this new set of circumstances. Since then, the entire world changed its attitude toward Pakistan. Despite the country’s flaws and instability, the international community was forced to cooperate with Islamabad. Since 1998, policymakers in Washington have been preoccupied with one central mission: how to prevent a nuclear bomb from falling into the hands of a dangerous regime in Pakistan.
One morning in the not-too-distant future, we may very well wake up to another, entirely new, reality. This time, there will be a great deal of attendant media coverage, through which we will discover that Tehran has joined the nuclear club. In this case, Washington and the West will have no need to fret over how to prevent the bomb from falling into dangerous hands. From the get-go, the bomb, or, at the very least, the capability to manufacture it, will already be in the possession of the inherently dangerous ayatollah regime.
Last week, key countries gathered in an Istanbul assembly hall in the hopes of preventing a nuclear surprise similar to the Pakistani precedent. Catherine Ashton, who is in charge of the European Union’s foreign affairs portfolio, led the delegation that included the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany.
On the evening prior to the meeting, the Russian delegation met separately with the Iranians in the Islamic Republic’s diplomatic mission in Istanbul. Foreign correspondents who were covering the event in Istanbul could not help but be reminded of the nearby city of Troy. In light of the Russians’ conduct in Istanbul, Troy seemed to be the right fusion between current events and geography. This time, though, the Russians didn’t even need a horse in which to hide. They were quite overt in expressing their support for the Iranians.
Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Riabkov, who headed Moscow’s delegation to the talks, declared on the eve of the conference that “there is nothing which proves that the Iranian nuclear project is for military purposes.” Tehran is not alone.
It is worth recalling the story in Istanbul from the epilogue, even though for the Iranians this Turkish city is just the prologue. The talks were held in stages. The Iranian press, a massive number of whom came to the conference, was updated as to the progress of the talks on the hour. The journalists came away satisfied by the positive results of the meeting. They placed special emphasis on the “positive” attitude of the talks.
Iranian officials and observers were eager to tout the West’s recognition of “Iran’s right to develop a nuclear project.” At a news conference which capped a long day, it seemed as if Iran was given a green light to continue enriching uranium by dint of its membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency, and because Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. At least that was the impression left by the remarks delivered by the head of the Iranian nuclear program, Saeed Jalili, who also headed Tehran’s delegation to the discussions.
“The European Union has reaffirmed Iran’s right to a nuclear program,” read the lead headline in the state-run newspaper Iran Daily. The editorial in the ultra-conservative newspaper Javan read: “The West understood the necessity of recognizing Iran’s absolute right to nuclear activity for peaceful purposes.” The newspaper Jomhuri Eslami reported on U.S. acquiescence to Iran gaining a nuclear capability. “America needs to abandon its political games and recognize reality,” the newspaper read.
Playing for time
There is more going on behind the scenes than out in the open. What was certainly out in the open at the Istanbul summit was the desire of all sides to display a sense of satisfaction, if not claim outright success. The reason is pretty clear. The world may be fearful of an Iranian bomb, but it is even more fearful of Israeli bombing. In my conversations with foreign correspondents in Istanbul, one could get the sense that an Iranian nuclear bomb would be a tolerable prospect, but a military assault on Iran would be less so.
Officials in Jerusalem certainly had reason to be concerned over the Iranians’ major achievement in Istanbul – the scheduling of another round of talks set for May 23 in Baghdad, just as the Iranians had hoped. European delegations sought to calm Israeli fears. As has been their wont since nuclear talks resumed on Oct. 1, 2009, the French were the most demonstrably tough in their positions. From the Europeans’ standpoint, with Germany included, there is a new reality today, with new sanctions in place which are unprecedented in scope.
Iran currently finds itself cut off from SWIFT, the global finance apparatus that enables banks to do business with international firms. Beginning July 1, Iran will be cut off from the EU oil market. On June 28, Washington will shun Iran’s central bank and all companies that do business with it. Syria, Iran’s ally, is in trouble. Even Turkey, with whom Iran has managed to find common ground, even if just for the sake of appearances, has suddenly turned into a rival that is getting into bed with the Saudis, the traditional Sunni rival of the Shiite Iranians.
All of this leads some to think that time is working against the Iranians, contrary to what officials in Jerusalem think. One can certainly see each day that passes as a day in which the Iranian regime moves closer to attaining its ultimate insurance policy – a nuclear bomb. Yet others see each day that passes as another day in the regime’s own war of survival, and another day that Iranian society buckles under the weight of harsh sanctions.
At one of Istanbul’s finest restaurants, which offered a breathtaking view of the Bosphorus in addition to a plate of select seafood delicacies, I sat with a senior diplomat who explained to me why the international community considered it important to declare the conference a success. “Failure in Istanbul is essentially tantamount to a declaration of war,” he said. “The countdown to an attack on Iran will begin the moment everyone here declares that Iran is headed toward the bomb and that dialogue with Iran offers no chance.”
How could the international community, which is staunchly opposed to an Israeli military strike, not give dialogue a chance even if the talks seem like a conversation amongst the deaf? “For all practical purposes, the Istanbul conference was supposed to be the last chance to avert a war with Iran,” the diplomat said. But, as an influential French weekly magazine put it this week, “the mountain gave birth to a molehill.”
The most important aspect of this story is what Washington decides to do. Is it ready to live with a nuclear Iran? Are Barack Obama’s poor numbers in public opinion polls, which indicate that Mitt Romney is gaining on him, going to result in a change in administration policy? Even a visit by the U.S. president to Jerusalem this summer to discuss the nuclear issue is certainly an option.
On the other hand, there may be truth to rumors of secret American-Iranian talks which could yield understandings allowing Iran to continue enriching uranium at a low level. This would be a return to the 2009 formula, in which Iran agrees to yield its enriched uranium to a foreign country in exchange for fuel rods from France and Russia. At the time, Iran withdrew from the agreement. In Istanbul, Jalili claimed that the West offered it to Tehran again.
A display of naivete
This week in Istanbul, I gained a firm understanding of the Iranians’ modus operandi, which from their standpoint has proved effective. They may have arrived at the talks with a delegation of just four diplomats, but they were accompanied by an army of reporters and assistants. The Iranian consulate in Istanbul has become a kind of nuclear headquarters. Whoever wished to meet with the heads of the Iranian delegation was forced to come to the consulate.
The Iranians arrived armed with posters that they plastered on the walls. “Nuclear energy for everyone, nuclear weapons for no one,” read one poster. Turkish organizers were initially opposed to Iranian plans to display the posters during the press conferences, but they ultimately bowed to pressure from the Iranians, who ostensibly did not forget to include the images of the five Iranian nuclear scientists who were killed under mysterious circumstances. Two of the scientists are seen in the posters playing with their children.
The one – and only – piece of goodwill exhibited by the Iranians was their agreeing to talk without preconditions. They bypassed their usual uncompromising demand to continue uranium enrichment by winning international recognition of their legitimate right to produce civilian nuclear energy.
At the start of the conference, Jalili sought to note how Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who dispatched him to Istanbul, issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Khamenei decreed that nuclear weapons are “tainted.” They are so tainted that according to the IAEA, Iran has been operating nuclear sites in Natanz as well as a subterranean facility near Qom in which it has enriched 5,400 kilograms of uranium at a level of 3.5 percent, this in addition to a stockpile of 109 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20%.
In Istanbul, the Iranians argued that this amount of enriched uranium was permitted by the NPT, to which Tehran is a signatory, unlike India, Pakistan, and Israel. But the international community is aware of the fact that this enrichment has been taking place at the underground facility in Fordo, which was discovered by foreign intelligence in 2009. At this point, there is nothing preventing Iran from enriching the uranium in its possession to a level of 90%, sufficient for a bomb.
Iran’s foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, urged the international community to drop the sanctions placed on Iran in light of Tehran’s concessions before the sides reconvene for a meeting in Baghdad next month. He even argued that lifting the sanctions would lead to a resolution of the nuclear crisis. But one wonders what concessions Salehi is talking about. Salehi’s demand fit in nicely with Jalili’s statements in Istanbul. “We are not willing to accept the language of threats and sanctions,” he said. “Iran only knows the language of cooperation.”
Washington has no intention of falling into this trap. It was quick to reply that it had no plans to lift sanctions. On the contrary, the sanctions are expected to spur Iran into making concessions in future talks. The U.S. is convinced that sanctions are compelling the Iranians to negotiate from a position of weakness.
The problem is there are people who do not foresee a clash between Washington and Tehran, but rather between Washington and Jerusalem. Much depends on Obama’s showing in the polls. Poor numbers will spur him to take on Tehran, while strong numbers will lead him to a head-on collision with Jerusalem.
Meanwhile, Moscow claims that there is nothing which indicates Iran’s intention is to build an atomic bomb, despite an IAEA report in February, which noted concern over the military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear project.
“A new channel has been opened between Iran and the international community,” a Western diplomat who attended the talks in Turkey said. “The big question is what will we put inside it in Iraq.”
Not just nuclear
Trita Parsi, the current president of the National Iranian American Council, believes that progress was made in Istanbul due to concessions offered up by both sides. “It will be important in the next few meetings to move beyond the question of the nuclear program,” he said.
This is code for addressing Iranian concerns over regional issues. Tehran wishes to be involved geopolitically while also winning recognition of its standing in the Middle East. Some observers see a chance to discuss a wide range of issues with Iran, including human rights in the Islamic Republic. This is precisely what Iran wishes to achieve. Discussions of this nature give it more room to breathe.
I amassed many hours of conversations with my Iranian colleagues last weekend. I got the sense that the Israeli and Iranian governments chalked up significant achievements. Israel could boast of having turned the Iranian nuclear program into a global challenge while using the threat of military action to spur the international community to act. Meanwhile, Iran has come to view the nuclear project as a source of national pride.
We learned two things from the conference in Istanbul. First, Iran understood that toughening its tone would not help, so it softened its rhetoric. Secondly, the entire world is united against a war in the Gulf, the ultimate consequences of which are unknown.
Social tensions in Iran may intensify, but even though the Arab revolutions showed the Iranian people that it is possible to topple their regime, they have also brought to the fore new regimes in Tunisia and Egypt that are becoming more sympathetic to Iran by the day.
There may be a different feeling in the air in Istanbul, but the reality on the ground remains as it was.
1. The European Union’s oil embargo due to go fully into effect on July must be lifted at once as the prelude to the phased and rapid cancellation of parallel US sanctions;
This was the “freebie” to which Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu referred on April 15, after a long conversation with visiting US Senator Joe Lieberman. He accused the US and the world powers of granting Iran a free five-week run to continue uranium enrichment undisturbed up until May 23 in Baghdad. He pointedly mentioned the US separately.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak led off by demanding a clear-cut outcome from the talks between the six world powers and Iran – quite simply, the discontinuation of Iran’s nuclear program. The bargaining must not drag on for months. Both these demands, voiced in a morning radio interview, were at odds with the Obama strategy for Iran. Barak went on to echo Netanyahu’s charge that the five-week interval between sessions had rewarded Iran with extra time for developing its nuclear capabilities.
Yadlin’s point was that Israel cannot afford to subscribe to the Obama administration’s willingness to live with a nuclear-capable Iran so long as it stops at the threshold of a final decision to use the resources and technology in its power for actually building a bomb.
4. Iran will be able to build a nuclear weapon any time between April 2013 and 36 months thereafter.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments