Iran defiant in face of US machismo
Mike Maiden discusses the American and European Union’s fears over increased Iranian nuclear capacity combined with anti-Israeli rhetric
Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief negotiator to the International Atomic Energy Agency, warned last Tuesday that Iran would leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if United Nations sanctions were imposed against them. This follows a statement by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, which raised fears of a major international standoff after revealing on April 11th that Iran had developed enriched uranium. The UN Security Council issued a statement calling on Iran to suspend its enrichment program, in accordance with the demands of the IAEA. The UN expressed disappointment in response to Iran’s revelation. President Bush stated that whilst the international world should strive to resolve the situation diplomatically, if talks fail “all options are on the table.” President Ahmadinejad retaliated that Iran would “cut off the hand of any aggressor,” a warning to America.
Members of the Security Council first became aware of the Iranian nuclear question in 2002, when the IAEA discovered that the Iranians had been working on a secret enrichment program for eighteen years. A further shock emerged with revelations by the Pakistani government in 2004 that Dr A Q Khan, head of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons research team, had leaked sensitive nuclear information to the Iranians from 1991 onwards. The Iranians have increased suspicion by reneging on an agreement to permit the IAEA to perform extra inspections, on top of those that the IAEA already conduct. On top of this, the election of President Ahmadinejad has increased tensions with the West. One month after his inauguration in August 2005, he stated that Israel (a close ally of the US) should be “wiped off the map.” In his first speech to the UN Security Council, in September 2005, he criticised the policy of pre-emptive strikes on states, seen by many as a condemnation of the invasion of Iraq. The Russians, a member state holding a permanent veto, is unwilling to impose sanctions on Iran. Talks between Western powers in Moscow in April saw Mikhail Kamynin, of the Russian foreign office rule out imposing sanctions. He said that fears over Iran “cannot be eased through sanctions and use of force.” The Russians however, have significant business ties with the Islamic Republic, which sanctions would be sure to sever. China, another veto power, also has links to Iran.
In their defence the Iranians assert that they intend to use nuclear fuel for civilian purposes only. On August 9th 2005, Ayatollah Khamenei issued a Fatwa (an Islamic legal decree), stating that the “production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam.” Iran is also a signatory of the NPT, and as such is entitled to enrich uranium for civilian use. Energy experts estimate that Iran’s oil supplies will dry up within one hundred years, and argue that Iran is looking for alternative energy solutions now. They also point to the fact that the Iranians have only managed to achieve a 3.5% enrichment of uranium, adequate for civilian use, but far off the 80% considered necessary to make a nuclear bomb. As yet, the IAEA’s inspectors have found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London estimate that it would take from between three to fifteen years for Iran to develop one. The UN called for Israel, who are not signatories of the NPT, to rid themselves of nuclear weapons in June 2004. Israel refused, but no action was taken against them by the Security Council. Muhammad al-Baradai, chief of the IAEA, said that this had caused anger in the region, as it created a “widespread imbalance” of power in the Middle East.
The Iranian standoff comes just one year after North Korea revealed that it had produced nuclear weapons, and was not willing to rejoin the NPT, which it left in 2003. Heavy sanctions have not prevented the North Koreans from acquiring both military and civilian nuclear capacities. China and South Korea have tried to entice the rogue state back to talks with promises of economic aid, primarily through monetary loans. Analysts in The Economist see this as a bad move, arguing it encourages North Korea to rattle the sabre in order to extract more concessions from the international world. After the failures against Saddam in the 1990s and North Korea today, a united front by the Security Council will be essential in dealing with the Iranian question.
