Iran's nuclear crisis creates media frenzy.

For 18 years Iran hid its enrichment programme from the UN council. It was only in 2003 that the secret programme was exposed, although as a result of Iran’s supposed secret operations, the council along with other international agencies and the US have ordered Iran to stop enrichment and certain other nuclear activities. But Iran isn’t the sort of country who panders to such international pressure. Since the presidential election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the Iranian government have been playing hard ball.
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), countries have a right to enrich its own fuel to a level appropriate for nuclear power and not any higher to a level needed for a nuclear weapon, under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran argues that it is merely doing what it is allowed to do and that they have no intention of making a bomb. However not only is Iran seen to the West as an untrustworthy ally Mr. Ahmadinejad himself has not helped the situation. Known for his hard-line beliefs, strict dress code for women and human rights violations, most recently reported Iranian student Ahmed Batebi, who escaped from horrendous torture in Iran due to his activities in public protesting. Mr. Ahmadinejad has not helped matters. Moreover his government has been in breach of sanctions imposed by the UN security council and been riddled with scandal, most recently the Royal Navy interception of over £800m worth of smuggled narcotics coming out of Iranian ports. Nonetheless despite all of this the big event that was sure to reach headlines was the recent power-play between the two opponent countries, Israel and Iran. In July Iran televised the test-firing of missiles as a response to the Israeli demonstration in June, whereby 100 Israeli jets appeared to be rehearsing the bombing of distant targets. The Iranian reaction is what hit the headlines, a reaction which illustrated that Iran was not scarred from any threat and would not be bullied. This very reaction created a massive stir within the Western press. The public ‘tit-for-tat’ game play between Iran and Israel and Iran’s consistent declining of deals, such as the freeze-freeze programme or suspension of the enrichment programme for negotiation, has consequently created international hysteria. This has prompted intellectuals, professors and analysts from leading think tanks to illustrate their views on how to deal with the Iran crisis.
Evidently there seems to be a variety of trends within the Western media suggesting what is the best strategy to solve rising tempers. The three main camps appear to be those who have vetoed the diplomatic track and are now calling for direct military action. Those who believe that we should continue diplomatic procedures, whether that been harsher sanctions or negotiations without Iran suspending its uranium enrichment programme. And those who believe the best solution to deal with this international crisis is to engage in dialogue with Iran via an agency or consortium to curb previous cultural and nationalistic ignorance’s.

Supporters of Military action

Those who have joined the pro-military action camp are the likes of John R. Bolton, author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations,” wrote for the Wall street Journal, explicitly arguing that the continuation of diplomacy is no longer effective. He suggests that stronger incentives will not entice Iran to abandon its pursuit of ‘nuclear weapons’ and therefore we should be discussing what cooperation the U.S will extend to Israel. By enforcing further sanctions, “The regime is buying the short additional period of time it needs to produce deliverable nuclear weapons, the strategic objective it has been pursuing clandestinely for 20 years,” wrote Bolton. He even goes as far to agree with Presidential nominee John McCain who stressed the need for a missile defence system which would defend the United States against attacks made by Iran and North Korea. Bolton went on to say in an interview that the Arab World would be “pleased” by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. (tel 24/6) Understandably this comment has substantial ground due to years of hostility between the two opposing countries, however the ramifications of an Israeli attack on Iran could affect the Arab world in a number of ways. Thus any attack on the Persian State would be far from the Arab World being ‘positive privately’. Bolton’s zero diplomatic stance believing that, ‘the U.S should place no obstacles in Israel’s path, and facilitate its efforts where it can,’ puts him firmly in this camp.

Editor Simon Jenkins for the Sunday Times interestingly argues against sanctions altogether. ‘Sanctions are a war waged by cowards…[they] are an ineffective, or worse a counterproductive weapon of interstate aggression,’ he wrote. Thus under this thinking Tehran under sanctions loses nothing by carrying on with its nuclear programme. For Jenkins sanctions merely strengthen administrations, “Sanctions made Saddam Hussein the sixth richest man in the world,” he said. As a result if not sanctions, what? Jenkins argues if you want to overthrow a regime you should just do it. So in the Iranian case the government is in breach of the sanctions given therefore for Jenkins military action is inevitable.

The diplomatic camp

The diplomatic camp has been given a great deal of support from academics such as John Thomson, who wrote for the Sunday Independent. He argues that despite Iran’s refusal to accept current deals the US president should agree to hold talks without pre-conditions. “Let negotiations begin without pre-conditions. Now, President Bush, to propose that yourself would be truly statesmanlike,” he wrote. Moreover Thomson believes that the whole Israeli talk about pre-emptive military action is a consequence of an ‘irrational fantasy’ that Iran intends to attack them. There reaction possibly signalled due to their shock of failing to win the 34-day war against Hizbollah and the current ongoing corruption allegations swarming around the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Negotiations with suspension in Thomson’s view is unlikely, he writes, “the change in Iranian tone and intentions is due to increasing confidence that its influence in the Middle East is equal to that of the US. Hence negotiations, it supposes, will be based on mutual respect.”

Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has also supported the need for a diplomatic stance suggesting that there is a need to change US policy to one of dialogue, along with tougher sanctions and renewed incentives. “Now is the time to work with out friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions,” Obama said. By this statement alone he has become Iran’s shining candidate, a man leading the way for the more dialogue to domesticate international displeasure.

David Miliband, who wrote for the Herald Times believes solely in the diplomatic track, however does not agree with pre-negotiations. Miliband gives what he believes is a clear choice, “Come into compliance with the UN resolution and be part of the international community, or remain in breach and suffer growing political and economic isolation.” The fact that there is a massive prize on offer if Iran behaves appropriately accepting the ‘freeze-for-freeze’ negotiation, merely illustrates the consistent ignorance of the West, unaware that behaving dissimilarly to the US does not necessarily mean it is bad.

Diplomacy via agency

The third camp relates to the idea that diplomatic negotiations should be furthered under UN agencies or a new consortium for that matter. Latest headlines have reported that President George Bush has approved to send diplomat William Burns, the state department’s third ranking official, to talks with Iran in Geneva this weekend over its disputed nuclear programme. This has added to the media frenzy of the last 2-3weeks and it is clear that the majority of the Western Press, The financial Times in particular, are proposing that the package of international economic support, security guarantees and assistance with its civilian nuclear programme, is one that Iran should firmly take hold of.

America’s decision to negotiate shows a more wiser approach than to previous crisis’ they have dealt with. Having Mr Burns attending the Geneva meeting with the EU’s top foreign policy official, Javier Solana and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, is a step towards the right direction. However this ‘symbolic gesture’ does not intentionally mean a shift in U.S policy. The key symbolic move lies in the creation of a US interests section and if anyone has hit the right notes its secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. Rice has been seeking President Bush’s approval to establish a ‘United States Interests Section’ in the Iranian Capital, Tehran. The key advantage of having this sort of agency is that America would be able to send diplomats to Iran to simplify travel visas for Iranians to come to the U.S. This allows for better relations and a more-likely pro-American feel among the Iranian people. Furthermore such an agency would be less like an intrusive intelligence operation and more like a research opportunity to observe the countries politics directly.

This approach is what Iran wants, more dialogue and less military threat. The missile firing tests were we must remember a response to Israel, Iran was never the one to have started the powerplay. As Richard Dalton, an analyst from the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had said, “When you get threatened explicitly and repeatedly, you want to show you have the capability of hitting back.” (stimes 13/7)

Professor James P. Rubin supports the idea of opening a diplomatic post seeing it as a, “wise policy and should be judged on its own merit.” However he interestingly proposes a different tact of diplomatic procedure. He calls for U.S policy to build on the pro-American feel market phenomenon and allow more Iranians to see the ‘real America’ rather than the propaganda version it is so frequently exposed to. Regardless of the fact that the government may see America as an adversary, the Iranian people see America as a country of ‘freedom and moderation.’ Thus by having more US diplomats come into the country, they would be able to simplify travel for Iranians to the US and subsequently improve relations. However Rubin believes this strategy will have to await a new, possibly Obama, administration before a new more powerful mix of incentives and disincentives are presented to Iran. Capitalizing on this visas initiative does seem like an effective way to deal with this International crisis, US interests in the country at the moment are looked after by the Swiss embassy. Therefore the creation of a US interests section would mean that diplomats can be stationed in Tehran marking the first time since the hostage crisis of 1979.

The jury is out which camps wins?

It would seem with the latest news of Geneva talks, the diplomacy tract without suspension has come out on top along with negotiations over a US interests consortium. The Media frenzy which has triggered the ideas and strategy solutions of leading academics and analysts is no doubt partly responsible for this most recent activity.
At the end of the day Iran does not have to pander to such international pressure because unlike Iraq, Iran has ample strategic defense plans, for example closing the Strait of Hormuz which allows passage of approximately 40% of the world traded oil. It could strike at neighboring countries, causing great rifts in Iraq and allies Hizbullah could create trouble on Israel’s northern boarder. Military action would therefore be catastrophic to the global oil markets and the price of petrol, it would destroy any progression of the US military effort in Iraq and ultimately destabilize the region.
The ball at this point in time is firmly in Iran’s court, however if negotiations do not go down well the ramifications of war would be disastrous as mentioned. You don’t have to walk too far down memory lane to know that Iraq was a terrible war and is still suffering along with the US economy. Should I remind you and the US there is very little ground for arguing that the Iraq war was a successful one, or even Afghanistan for that matter. Over 50 thousand Iraqi’s have been killed, over 5m have had to uproot from the state and the country is still riddled by insurgency. The US economy spent well over $300b for the war and with Prime Minister Nuri Al-MALIKI suggesting that US forces should start to leave in bigger brigades, Bush should take up his offer. But again it is Obama who seems to be the only politician who is on the right track to fill the gaping whole in the US economy.
Iraq is an example to the US and Israel not to use military action, war has not solved anything there so why would it solve the Iranian crisis. Going in all guns blazing like they did in Iraq, will only destroy any relations the US has made. However if dialogue does not start soon with Iran, not only will Israel move closer to engaging in military force, but also further foreign investment will be severely constrained as we have seen already with the loss of TOTAL of France, which recently decided to remove itself from investing in the Iran’s huge South Pars gas field. Chief executive of Total, Christophe de Margerie said the standoff was due to the, “extremely delicate political environment.” The energy minister of Iran, Gholamhossin Nozari said, “This is our message: we will proceed with development with or without them.”

Negotiation without suspension is the right way to go. An international body/ consortium, for research to reduce cultural and nationalist ignorance of the intervening state is the best way in dealing with countries like Iran. Depending on how well the Geneva talks go the fact that the US have made the first move to negotiate and that for the first time Iran has agreed and not backed away at such a revolutionary prospect allows for a glimmer of light to shine through the gridlock.

By Nisha Chopra