Compromise-Free Politics
The conflict surrounding Iran's nuclear programme is escalating from week to week. The US administration is intransigent and refuses to negotiate directly with Teheran. It calls Iran a rogue state and says it is the centre of international terrorism. It would like to introduce sanctions against Iran as soon as possible and is threatening war.
The conflict's new dynamic
This approach is on a par with the continuous stream of provocations emanating from Teheran. But the increasing threats roll off President Ahmadinejad like water off a duck's back: he is not afraid of proudly announcing that Iran has at last mastered the entire nuclear fuel cycle and calling on Iranians to celebrate this "major victory" with a festival.
He verbally attacks Israel, calls the holocaust into question, and declares that he "doesn't give a fig" about UN security council resolutions. Bush and Ahmadinejad keep hitting out at each other, thereby giving the conflict a momentum that – if allowed to go unchecked – will inevitably lead to a war with disastrous consequences.
Russia and China, who are playing supporting roles in this nuclear cliff-hanger, don't want to make an enemy of Iran. Russia is Iran's biggest supplier of arms, builds nuclear reactors for the country, and is an active player on the Persian market in other respects. China relies on Iran's oil and gas deliveries and is one of the country's biggest trading partners.
Both countries also have strategic interests in the region. Iran could play an important role as a bridge between the Near and Middle East and as a counterpole to the growing influence of the USA in Central and Eastern Asia, especially as Iran's president, Ahmadinejad, has already started implementing his foreign policy of moving away from the West and closer to the East.
The EU's dubious role
However clear the roles of the other parties directly involved in the Iranian nuclear dispute may be, the role of the EU remains shrouded in mystery. I ask myself what goals Germany, France, and the United Kingdom (the three EU Member States who have been leading the negotiations with Iran to date) are pursuing?
Haven't they noticed that they have been taken in by the USA? Don't they see that they have moved away from their stated goal of resolving the conflict by peaceful means and are now completely in line with Washington? And are they not aware that in doing so, they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces? After all, if heavy sanctions are imposed – and, worse still, if war is waged against Iran – they would be hit worse than any other party involved.
The increase in the price of oil alone, which could possibly pass the $100 per barrel mark, would inflict massive damage on the economy of the European Union. The Member States of the EU would lose important markets in the region and their security would be at great risk. So what is it that is driving the EU to veer off the path of peace and align itself with the USA?
A rethink is necessary
Ironically, of all the players involved, the European Union is the only one that could make the conflicting parties see reason again. It is known that there are already proposals on the table whereby the international community would accept Iran's right to enrich uranium, while at the same time, virtually excluding the risk of the country becoming a nuclear power.
The EU could assume a key role if Berlin, London, and Paris would only dare to resist the pressure being exerted by Washington and decide instead to pursue a peaceful course to the resolution of the conflict.
However, there are at present no indications that this will happen. But why not? What weighty arguments are there that could convince the EU to abandon its own, peaceful course and walk – with its eyes wide open – headlong into a catastrophe and even risk a war?
It goes without saying that the image of Ahmadinejad with his finger on the nuclear trigger is a frightening one. For my part, I am against not only nuclear weapons, but also the peaceful use of nuclear power in Iran for two reasons. Nuclear reactors are firstly, far too expensive and secondly, far too dangerous in an earthquake zone like Iran.
Make the Near East a completely nuclear-free zone
We have plenty of sun, water, and wind, and we could use these natural resources to meet our energy needs should the oil and gas run out in twenty to thirty years' time.
However, it would be a mistake to believe that the dispute with Iran is only about ridding the region of the nuclear threat. Because if this was really the crux of the issue, it makes no sense that the proposal made by pro-reformers in Iran to turn the entire region into a nuclear-free zone has not been taken up.
One could at least accept the last Russian proposal to allow Iran to enrich uranium at a low level for research purposes and to produce nuclear fuel in Russia as long as it agrees to abandon long-term industrial uranium enrichment.
One could also ask why Washington is willing to negotiate directly with North Korea, but not with Iran.
The answer is that the USA is pursuing completely different strategies to the ones to which it admits because it wants to bring about a regime change in Iran and to bring this oil-rich country under its control.
This explains why the Bush administration is not willing to make any concessions whatsoever. This is why Washington is demanding that the UN security council passes a resolution to introduce increasingly tough sanctions against Iran – sanctions that are likely to lead ultimately to a military intervention with dire consequences not only for the entire region, but also for Europe and the USA.
Grist to the mill of the radicals
But sanctions and military intervention would achieve exactly the opposite of what they are allegedly being used to achieve. Instead of fostering democracy and isolating the regime, Iranian civil society, which is remarkably advanced, would be split right down the middle and its development would be set back years.
Moreover, it would be playing into the hands of radicals and fundamentalists cut from the same cloth as Ahmadinejad and other terrorist groups because it would give them an excuse to whip up more hate and lust for revenge, thereby allowing them to consolidate and extend their base.
A clever policy that wants to secure peace and at the same time aims for democracy in Iran must isolate the regime in Iran, not the Iranian people.
If the pressure that has been exerted on Iran over the past few years as a result of the nuclear conflict had been exerted because of human rights abuses, the oppression of women, the rigorous censure of the press, the restriction of the freedom of speech, the oppression of working people and ethnic and religious minorities and, finally, the maltreatment in prisons of those who dared criticise the regime, the development of Iranian civil society would be much more advanced than it already is.
War cannot bring about a solution. I am sure that clever politicians in Berlin, Paris, and London already know this. It is not yet too late. They should jump off the war bandwagon and return to the political course they set out upon three years ago.
Bahman Nirumand
© Qantara.de 2006
Translated from the German by Aingeal Flanagan
Qantara.de
Iran's Nuclear Program
More Information on Iran, Please!
Iran has resumed its nuclear power program. But the commotion about it by politicians in the European Union and the United States is unjustified, according to Peter Philipp
Nuclear Negotiations with Iran
Collision Course with the International Community
With his hardline tactics and populist rhetoric, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has maneuvered himself into isolation – both from the international community and from conservative government circles in Teheran. Bahman Nirumand reports
EU and Iran
Europe's Controversial Diplomacy
Since Bush declared Iran as being part of the "axis of evil", dialogue between Teheran and Washington hasn't been on the agenda. Meanwhile, Europe is trying to negotiate with Iran. But what will force the ruling clergy to change their ways? By Hamdam Mostafavi