Pragmatism need of the hour for Iran issue

Videos
Photos

(China Daily)
Updated: 2008-08-07 08:48

August 2 was the deadline for Iran to make clear if it accepts or not the plan to resume talks on its nuclear ambition with the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

But, on July 30, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki denied a deadline actually existed and emphasized the ultimatum-like warning by the major powers meant nothing to Iran.

That means Javier Solana, high representative for the common foreign and security policy of the European Union, was only talking about his own wish or "hope" when he said after meeting with Mottaki in Geneva on July 19 that "Iran will make a definite reply within two weeks" rather than an agreement between the two sides.

The international community's anticipation for some progress in the political and diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear issue was dashed once again.

This development is truly regrettable, because, unlike past meetings where Solana represented the "5+1" nations (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council the US, Britain, France, Russia and China plus Germany) for talks with the Iranian side, this time the number-3 man at the US State Department, Under Secretary for Political Affairs William Burns, was in Geneva as the US representative, as were representatives of the other five countries, on July 19.

In addition to the show of importance the "5+1" nations attached to this meeting, the encouragement solution package proposed by the six major powers was also "very generous".

The US even expressed three wishes of good will toward Iran before the Geneva talks: to establish a representative office in Teheran; President George W. Bush stating clearly that Washington still keeps the resolution of the Iran nuclear issue by political and diplomatic means as priority, and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's repeated offer to negotiate directly with the Iranian side "any time" and "anywhere".

For the US, whether it was a real desire to adjust relevant policies or a decision forced by various circumstances, the gestures represented an effort to let its hair down, give political and diplomatic means another chance and, more importantly, test Iran's bottom line.

On Iran's part, it, too, extended an olive branch a few times before the post-Geneva spat. One such gesture was a willingness to consider a formal decision on the US request to establish an office representing American interests in Teheran. Another was to reply in writing to the proposal by "5+1" nations.

Still another, expressed after the July 19 Geneva talks, was that Iran was willing to hold more bargains. And yet another, in the form of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words spoken on July 28, that "Iran would be faced with a kind of new situation and the Iranian people would respond positively" if what the recent US gestures signaled Washington had changed its stance toward Iran.

If the two sides had both been pragmatic and adjusted their policies it would have been possible that this window of opportunity was opened wider and became a door to normalization of bilateral relations.

Much to the international community's disappointment, its expectations once again fell through on August 2, which means the Iran nuclear issue moved one step closer to the critical point and would force all parties concerned to pick between two totally different choices.

One choice is to continue pushing ahead along the political and diplomatic track. Right now the parties involved in the process have not given up just yet. The six major powers will shift their focus to the question of how to achieve some progress on the diplomatic front.

The US has repeatedly threatened to toughen sanctions against Iran in a bid to bring Teheran to its knees and won conditioned support from Britain and France. However, any success of diplomatic efforts depends on the key issue of whether Iran suspends its uranium enrichment program. The current situation shows it is very difficult for the US and Iran to reach some kind of a compromise over this issue.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Hoseyni Khamenei reiterated on July 30, "It is totally wrong and groundless to think that backing down from the right stand or making concessions can change the arrogant policies of global powers;" "Iran must keep a clear mind and move on;" "the future is bright," "(we) must not stop."

This again explained why the US was "highly suspicious" of Iran and believed Teheran did not "take Washington's 'substantial' actions seriously and unwilling to compromise. Under the circumstance it is highly unlikely for the US to take another step back, not before some major policy adjustment takes place, anyway.

As neither side is prepared to give in, the direct outcome is a fourth resolution to apply even more severe sanctions against Iran being tabled at the UN Security Council. But, having seen the previous three resolutions on sanctions all fail to make a dent it is very possible that the next one stands no bigger a chance to succeed than those before it.

If the fourth resolution on sanctions fails to achieve its goal, the Iran nuclear issue will remain unresolved. That means efforts to settle this issue through political and diplomatic channels will have reached a dead end and Iran will become a country with nuclear arms or a "threshold country" possessing the technology to produce nuclear weapons on its own; the Middle East situation will undergo a drastic change, and Israel as well as the US will find themselves in a very passive position.

That is a result most Americans and especially "hawks" like Vice-President Dick Cheney strongly oppose and will do anything to prevent. It is also a result that Israel can never accept. Unless the Iran-US-Israel relations are fundamentally improved at the same time, the choice left will no doubt be that the US and Israel launch separate or joint military attacks on Iran. And both the US and Israel held large-scale military exercises in recent months.

The Israeli chief of staff, transport minister, defense minister and foreign minister traveled to the US in close succession for talks with the White House, State Department and the Pentagon about the Iran nuclear issue. Multiple signs suggest the two countries are now divided only on details such as the order of policy priorities and the timing of military strikes.

The US has agreed to deploy an anti-ballistic missile early-warning radar system for Israel so that the latter's Arrow II ballistic shield can detect and intercept Iran's Shehab-3 ballistic missiles. On the other hand, the US has provided the improvement of situation it faces over the Iran nuclear issue with certain conditions.

As US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told fellow Democratic congress persons after returning from his recent visit to Iraq and Israel: "Nobody said this to me directly but I get the feeling from my talks that if the sanctions don't work, Israel is going to strike Iran."

If this happens, the Middle East and even the whole international situation, especially the global oil market, will be violently rocked and even thrown into unforeseeable troubles. That is a result the international community, including China, would very much hate to see.

China not only wants a "harmonious Middle East" but has been doing its best to maintain the advantage of having good relations with both the US and Iran that allows it to push for resolving the issue by political and diplomatic means within the framework of "5+1", IAEA and UN Security Council.

In April this year, China for the first time hosted in Shanghai a round of talks among the "5+1" nations about the Iran nuclear issue. However, no one is more qualified to undo a problem than those who created it in the first place. Ultimately it will depend on the US and Iran to resolve the latter's nuclear issue for good, provided they both have what it takes to seize the opportunity when it comes up and make whatever policy adjustment necessary to achieve the goal.

The author is director of the Center for Strategic Studies and deputy director of the Institute of Security and Strategic Studies

(China Daily 08/07/2008 page11)