West's new Iran strategy
WESTERN countries, including the US, cannot handle Iran because many believe there is a double-standard in their stance. They allow Israel to retain nuclear weapons (about 150 nuclear heads) but would not allow Iran to pursue nuclear programme to generate electricity. They suspect Iran, one of the world's greatest oil and gas reserves, does not need to generate electricity from nuclear reactor and their nuclear enrichment programme is to make nuclear weapons. Iran, on the other hand, argues that oil and gas are not renewable resources and given the price of oil at almost $140 per barrel, there is no reason why they should burn oil to make electricity for domestic purposes. Rather they would sell oil to other countries for sound economic reasons. Furthermore, Iran finds that one pound of uranium produces 20,000 times more energy than one litre of oil and gas. Nuclear energy (uranium 235 and uranium 238-derived plutonium produce) emits no harmful gases or toxic metals into the environment. And, unlike hydroelectric dams, it does not alter a region's ecosystem. France's 77 per cent energy comes from nuclear power. Accordingly, Iran argues that being a member of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty of Nuclear Weapons it has the right under Article IV of the Treaty "to develop, research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes". It is Tehran's sovereign right to develop nuclear energy, as contemplated by the Treaty. New Strategy The above arguments have created a bottleneck between the West and Iran. Neither side seems willing to back down from their position. To end the stalemate, scientists of MIT have devised a new strategy. The strategy is that the US should help build an internationally run enrichment facility inside Iran to replace Iran's current facilities. This strategic plan was provided to the Bush administration three years ago but it was summarily rejected. The administration argued that tougher sanctions and the threat of military strikes would force Iran to stop its programme to enrich uranium, a process that uses thousands of spinning centrifuges to create fuel out of rare uranium isotopes that can be used for nuclear power or weapons (5 per cent enrichment would generate electricity while 95 per cent enrichment would make nuclear weapons, technology being the same). But now, according to some scientists, as Iran appears on the verge of mastering enrichment technology, the call to internationalise Iran's facilities is getting more attention in Congress as a face-saving compromise. In this connection, it is reported that Iranian officials proposed building an international enrichment plant inside Iran in a letter submitted to the UN last month but declined to say whether such a plant would be in addition to or a replacement for their own facilities. In an interview last month Iran's Ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee, reportedly said that the details should be negotiated. It is reported that Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat called the plan "a creative, thoughtful and productive potential solution", while Presidential Candidate John McCain and Barack Obama, the presumptive Democrat nominee, have both endorsed using international consortiums to produce nuclear fuel as a way to take production out of Iran's hands. It is further reported John Thomson, a former British Ambassador to the UN who is now at MIT and Godfrey Forden, an MIT physicist and former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, have spent more than two years on separate research into the technology needed to safeguard such an international facility, including equipment that would prevent Iranian scientists from taking control of it or learning how it works. International consortiums to make fuel for nuclear power plants have been around for decades. In 1973, France, Belgium, Spain and Sweden formed a joint enrichment programme and a year later the Shah of Iran lent $1 billion to the project for a 10 per cent share in the project. But because of the revolution in Iran in 1979, the deal was cancelled and the loan was frozen. Joseph Cirincione, a non-proliferation specialist who serves informally as an adviser to Obama's campaign, is quoted to have said: "This is nobody's first choice, but it may be the compromise we end with." The question is whether Iran will accept the plan with conditions that Iranian scientists will be kept away from the enrichment technology. Some experts believe that there is another way to keep Iran out of nuclear weapon technology. If the Middle East becomes a non-nuclear zone (that means Israel dismantles its nuclear weapon facilities and surrenders the nuclear weapons), Iran may not be interested in pursuing the plan in which Iran will not have control over the international facility. One should not forget that Iran had gone through many invasions by foreigners. It was invaded by Greeks, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, Afghans, Britain and Russia. The 1953 coup removing its popular Prime Minister Mossadeq was attributed to CIA. Iranians had overcome all these attacks and interferences. Moreover Iran can claim 2,500 years of history, civilisation and culture. Iranians are conscious of the past and have grown with an impressive cultural self-consciousness. Unless there is a proposal that is perceived as respectful to Iran's sovereignty, Iran may not accept the new strategic plan. The author is former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments