Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Threats are not the way to influence Tehran

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Threats are not the way to influence Tehran

    International Herald Tribune, France
    July 1 2004

    Threats are not the way to influence Tehran

    Kaveh L. Afrasiabi and Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh IHT

    Iran's nuclear program


    TEHRAN In the aftermath of the UN atomic agency's stinging criticism
    of Iran's nuclear program, Secretary of State Colin Powell threatened
    to seek UN sanctions against Tehran in September. But if the United
    States is serious about deterring Iran's ruling clergy from going
    nuclear, it must first address Iran's national security worries.

    As the crisis over Iran's seizure of several British naval craft in
    the disputed Shatt al Arab waterway demonstrates, Iran's worries
    about the spillover of the Iraqi conflict over its vast western
    borders are real. To the east, Afghanistan remains a hotbed of
    narcotics trafficking and warlords. Pakistan is an unstable pivot. To
    the north, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Armenia have their own levels
    of instability; to the west, Turkey faces Kurdish irredentism fueled
    by the developments in Iraq. In the Gulf, an endemic Sunni militancy
    led by Al Qaeda threatens Saudi Arabia and other oil sheikdoms.

    But it is the Bush administration's advocacy of regime change in
    Iran, as part of the "axis of evil," that must account for much of
    Iran's current security disquiet, nourishing its thirst for nuclear
    deterrence.

    Iran's policy makers and security analysts have been weighing for
    some time the benefits and risks of its nuclear program.

    The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have lifted two direct threats
    to Iran. Gone for the foreseeable future is Iran's worry over Iraq's
    weapons of mass destruction, or another round of war like the bloody
    eight-year Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

    Moreover, Iran's ailing economy would suffer greatly under UN
    economic sanctions. Iran's clerical rulers cannot be indifferent to
    the decision by Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi to halt his nuclear
    program and admit that his country's security and economy would
    suffer if he crossed the nuclear threshold. Sanctions would exact a
    heavy price on the government's resources at a time it is already
    suffering a high unemployment rate, particularly among its large and
    restless youth population, and when Tehran has yet to move the
    victims of the Bam earthquake from tents into homes.

    Yet if Tehran continues to feel threatened by regional instability
    and by Washington's (and Israel's) open advocacy of regime change, it
    will likely veer in the direction of nuclearization.

    Thus Iran's decision whether to pursue nuclear development is a
    matter of striking a balance between national interests and
    legitimate security worries.

    Hence the United States and its allies should do what they can to
    diminish Iran's fears and to encourage a viable security arrangement
    in the Gulf region in tandem with the United Nations.

    Confidence-building measures - such as guaranteeing Iran's integrity
    or acknowledging Iran's constructive conflict-management role in the
    region - would achieve a lot more toward Iranian nonproliferation
    than years or even decades of sanctions.

    This, in turn, requires a willingness by the United States to
    recognize Iran's important role in regional stability, as
    demonstrated by its cordial relations with the government of Hamid
    Karzai in Kabul and its endorsement of the interim government in
    Baghdad. Another positive signal would be to support Iran's bid to
    join the World Trade Organization, where it has only observer status.

    The United States could also propose to drop its objections to Iran's
    construction of a nuclear reactor in Bushehr if Iran would suspend
    its uranium enrichment program, halt the construction of a heavy
    water plant and submit to thorough inspections.

    While there is no guarantee of success for this "soft power"
    approach, the current approach of demonizing Iran and threatening
    sanctions will only motivate Tehran to pursue its nuclear ambitions.
    A combination of security guarantees, economic benefits, support for
    Iran's legitimate right to peaceful nuclear technology and the olive
    branch of diplomatic normalization has a much better chance of
    putting Iran back on the path of nonproliferation than any other
    approach.

    Kaveh L. Afrasiabi is an Iranian political scientist who lives in the
    United States. Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh is a professor of geopolitics at
    Tarbiat Modaress University in Iran and director of the Eurosevic
    Foundation in London. Iran's nuclear program
Working...
X