Iran ready to talk? On their own terms, perhaps.

Is Iran really ready to talk about its nuclear program? Well, their message to Kofi Annan suggests they are, as the Washington Post reports today. President Ahmedinejad has said repeatedly Iran will not stop enrichment, as the UN Security Council has demanded. However, Un Secretary General Kofi Annan was told that the Iranians are ready to discuss the future of Iran's nuclear program, but that they won't stop enriching uranium as a pre-condition. Why would they? It's the strongest card in their hand. Although, as the Washington DC-based NGO ISIS reported last week, the card may not be as strong as the Iranian government would have everyone believe.

As the ISIS report says "Iran has made limited progress at its Natanz uranium enrichment plant, installing and operating fewer gas centrifuges than expected. Senior Vienna-based diplomats have confirmed to ISIS that Iran may be either delaying deliberately the pace of its work while diplomatic efforts are underway, or is experiencing technical problems with its centrifuge program."

This would be good news if correct, because either it signals an Iranian willingness to deal with the IAEA or an inability to force their enrichment program forward would would leave them no option but to talk. Either way, it should be bad news for the hawks in Washington DC who see their way out of their current mess in Iraq as an attack on Iran.

EU Foreign Policy chief Javier Solana will meet Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani this week, and EU foreign ministers meeting this weekend agreed to allow two more weeks for "clarification" and for talks to proceed before going back to the UN for more action. They could do little else, with few European nations having the stomach for a confrontation with Iran, and with the Russians signaling their opposition to significant sanctions against Tehran. (See here)

That the wider international community hasn't rushed headlong into a economic or even military stand-off with Iran is to be welcomed. There are years left to resolve this situation satisfactorily, and if Iran is really willing to cooperate with the IAEA they should be given the necessary time to do so. However, allowing them time can't mean allowing them time to develop the bomb, that would be unacceptably dangerous. This is a difficult balancing act, but for the moment caution should reign. If we can get past the Bush presidency with the Iranians still talking to the international community, perhaps the next US President will be man enough to talk.

UN Deadline Day for Iran

The deadline for Iran to respond to the EU3, and to suspend enrichment of uranium has arrived. And, surprise surprise, Iran isn't going to do what the Security Council asked it to do. The Times has a good article with much of the salient detail. Iran is continuing to enrich uranium. So, what happens next?

Well, much will depend on who has played their cards the best in the run-up to today's deadline. And the answer appears to be, Iran. The Bush administration has pursued a maladroit campaign of vilification of Iran and its leader. After all, John Bolton, Bush's UN Ambassador is much better at bluster than tedious activities usually associated with diplomacy -- like convincing other countries to go along with you by force of argument.

Iran, on the other, is the country where chess was invented. And while the crude posturing of President Ahmedinejad may have many thinking that Iran isn't any more sophisticated than Bolton, that would be the wrong impression to take from recent events. In fact, Iran has embarked on a subtle set of diplomatic moves that play very much to its strengths. And dealing with important countries that can help to influence UN actions.

China, for example, has to balance concerns on proliferation with its energy needs. (See an article here), and as an habitual opponent of sanctions also in need of Iranian oil, China can probably be relied upon to halt any drastic action against Iran - as long as Iran doesn't do anything too provocative.

In the Middle East, reaction is mixed, but except from Israel there is little enthusiasm for strong action against Iran. Indeed, despite some fears about a nuclear-armed Iran, many in the region admire Iran for its stance against the US (See here).

As UPI reports (amongst others) Iran has also reached out to India, itself a nuclear armed pariah, with negotiations today on a variety of energy-related issues including the Iranian nuclear program. India won't want to offend the US in advance of a Senate vote sometime in September for approval of the US-India civil nuclear cooperation deal (itself a breach of all international non-proliferation norms). However, as a non-aligned nation with a nuclear program, India won't want to distance itself to far from Tehran either, and the Iranians will be very pleased for any support they can get from New Delhi.

Even EU member Italy has said that the Iranian desire for nuclear power generation is legitimate. (See this article).

So, for Iran things seem fairly rosy, as this Gulf News article points out. The worst they can expect from the Security Council is some fairly low grade sanctions - perhaps a travel ban for top officials. And they can continue to produce heavy water and to enrich uranium confident in the knowledge that it is Washington and not Tehran that is isolated. The EU haven't offered enough to stop Iran going ahead - indeed the only thing that might is direct talks with the US and guarantees that regime change is off the table. But President Bush and his team simply lack the balls to challenge their own lunatic fringe, call Ahmedinejad's bluff and offer such talks.

The problem with all this is that it leaves Iran further down the road to nuclear weapons, or at least the capability to produce such weapons. The international determination to prevent proliferation to Iran is melting away, as the Iranian government surely calculated it would. The strident US position has not only strengthened the domestic position of the Iranian government, it has divided the international community which seemed ready to oppose Tehran's wishes.

So, unless Washington actually wants another war, their policy is failing badly. The Europeans don't come out of this much better, since their unity in negotiation is only skin deep. And in any case, they took on the task of talking to Tehran when only negotiations with DC would do.

And the tragedy is that, in all of this, the global non-proliferation regime is the first victim of American and European ineptitude. And in the Middle East, that is a really dangerous state of affairs.

Preventing Proliferation - A Role for the ICC

The New York Times has story today on a link with the Iranian nuclear program to a company in Japan. Apparently, Mitutoyo, a precision instruments maker, which is known to have supplied equipment to Libya for their nuclear program, may well have done the same for Iran. The measuring equipment supplied by the company would be extremely useful, if not essential, in the construction of advanced P2-model centrifuges for uranium enrichment.

It is already known that Iran has obtained P2 technology from Pakistan, and that they are trying to construct their own versions of the centrifuge. This story appears to add an important piece of evidence to the case against Iran. They may be years away from the bomb, but the Iranian government has been lying to the IAEA about their activities to cover up their cheating on their IAEA safeguards agreement.

This episode shows the need for widespread and effective criminal sanctions for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or of materials or equipment that could be used for that end. Individual nations simply can't be trusted to deal with such matters. As evidence for that, note that global nuclear smuggler A.Q. Khan has been allowed to retire peacefully to one of his luxury villas in Pakistan, without even briefing intelligence services outside Pakistan on the full extent of his crimes.

Since nuclear weapons can only be used to commit mass murder, it follows that illicit proliferation activities should be treated as crimes against humanity. Individuals and officials that commit such crimes should liable to end up on trial in the Hague at the International Criminal Court, just as those who commit genocide are.

This possibility would send a strong message that the world is serious about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, and treat illicit proliferation as seriously as it deserves to be treated.

Just a thought.

Getting Started

I have always found that the hardest part of any writing project is getting going, so we're going to launch straight in. It's going to be a busy week. Iran is coming back to the front burner (possibly literally if Vice-President Cheney and his acolytes get there way). So, a good time to launch a blog concentrating on proliferation and counterproliferation. And the title? Well, I have worked for more than twenty years advocating nuclear disarmament on two continents in three capitals. And yet, I don't quite fit the mould. A long time CNDer, my break with them came when much of its leadership (of which I was part at the time) discovered that, despite Halabja, Saddam wasn't as bad as the first George Bush back in 1990. The breach has widened over the years, and now I find myself little surprised that many who claim to work for peace and disarmament are prepared to countenance an Iranian nuclear weapons program as long as they can run a good campaign against Bush and Blair.

Not all disarmament advocates oppose anything just because the US, the UK or NATO do it. Not all progressive security thinkers oppose all use of military force reflexively. Nor do we all oppose western nuclear weapons, while worrying less, little or not at all about those to the east or south. So it will be with this blog.