ROUND THE WORLD
New Delhi, 17 January 2006
Despite Intense Pressure
IRAN’s Enigmatic Behaviour CONTINUES
By Dr. Chintamani
Mahapatra
School of International Studies, JNU
Iran appears determined to
pursue a civilian nuclear programme according to its own sweet will, but
simultaneously disregarding the fears and apprehensions of most major powers in
the world.
There is not a single
country in the international community which feels comfortable to stand with Iran on its
nuclear stance. The Muslim neighbours of Iran,
all major Asian powers, five permanent members of the UN Security Council and
all genuine members of formal and informal proliferation control regimes do not
desire to see the emergence of a nuclear weapon power in the Persian
Gulf region.
When Tehran
expresses its desire to promote nuclear industry in the country for power
generation, many raise eyebrows for the simple reason that Iran is an oil
and gas rich nation. Nonetheless, none opposes the sovereign right of Iran, a member
of the NPT, to develop civilian and peaceful uses of nuclear power.
The problem arises when
the Iranian Government seeks to pursue this course on its own terms and
conditions. Tehran
wants to have a full civilian nuclear fuel cycle at home, which can bring it
the perfect recipes for developing nuclear weapons. It vows by its peaceful
intentions, but there are many who would not take the Iranian leadership’s
statements on its face value.
Iran had been given clean
chits many times in the past by the IAEA on its civilian nuclear activities,
but the revelations of Iranian involvement in nuclear black market, including
the one run until recently by Pakistani nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan,
have turned Iran
into a suspect.
In the face of intense
American pressure to punish Iran, three members of the European Union—France,
Germany and Britain-- took the initiative to resolve the issue through
diplomacy and dialogue. Iran
cooperated for a while, but increasingly aired strong views against Israel, made
disparaging remarks, issued statements that appeared unfavourable and
unacceptable to the Europeans as well.
All these were regarded
as Iran’s
bargaining behaviour until it first threatened and then implemented its
decision to resume uranium enrichment programme, suspended by the predecessor
government under an understanding with the IAEA and the international
community.
Russian President
Vladimir Putin came up with a pragmatic solution to the entire issue by
offering to process and enrich uranium on Russian territory and then pass on
those to Iran
for use in power reactors. For a change, even the hawks in the Bush
Administration viewed this proposal as sensible, feasible and appropriate to
resolve the issue without resorting to any arms twisting methods.
Iran chose instead to defy
the international community and refused to entertain such a proposal. It
considered it the sovereign right of the country to pursue a civilian nuclear
programme at home. Had sovereignty remained the same as interpreted by Austin, reality would
have been different. Sovereignty has assumed different meanings at different
times. It needs considerable military might, economic independence and
political will to assert sovereignty on ways that may threaten others.
As a matter of fact, the
United States,
the hyper-power of the globe, also appears caught in the web of global
interdependence and cannot afford to dangle its sovereignty card on every issue
under the sun. Why is then current leadership behaving like the emperors who
claimed divine rights to perform whatever they desired? Ahmednejad’s behaviour reminds one of Saddam
Hussein’s rhetoric during the Kuwaiti crisis. Before the US-led military
operations liberated Kuwait,
he used to issue statements like “making Americans swim in their own blood”, if
they dared attack Iraq
and things of that sort.
The Iranian behaviour
prompts one to suspect that the country may already have developed a nuclear
weapon capability. Some would reject such a view outright. But then who knew
that in the midst of international haggling, North Korea on a fine morning
admitted and others believed that it had developed the weapon capability?
Similar incidents are plenty in recent nuclear history of the world. The world
need not be surprised that Iran, which clandestinely acquired certain nuclear
equipment from the black market keeping the world in dark for years, could have
developed modest capability to make at least one weapon.
The second factor for
Iranian nuclear intransigence appears to be the rising energy prices in the
world market. Starved of revenues until recently, the country’s treasury seems
to have benefited a great deal from the recent oil price hikes. It is less
concerned about its economic isolation now then it was earlier.
The third factor is Iran’s belief
that it can use the oil weapon to destabilize the oil market further, if
sanctions are imposed on the country on the ground of its nuclear policy. In
the backdrop of rising energy prices and growing energy demands in the world, Iran’s capacity
to contribute to stability in the oil market or cause chaos in it would
seriously increase.
The fourth factor is Tehran’s assessments of the ground situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Years after major
military operations were declared to be over by the US
and replacement of troublesome regimes in Baghdad
and Kabul, the two countries are undergoing a
situation where the US
and its coalition partners are not comfortable to withdraw their troops. The
American GIs, who seem to have got stuck in two sides of Iran—Afghanistan in
the east and Iraq in the west—may not attempt to open another front in Iran—so
goes the thinking in Iranian governing circles.
Finally, the Russians
and the Chinese, annoyed as they may appear with Iranian intransigence, do not
appear to have unanimous views with the US and NATO members on the best
course to deal with the Iranians. The London
meet may not be able to produce a quick fix. Troubling days are clearly ahead.---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|