POLITICS: Iran May Get Off Nuclear Issue Hook

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI, Nov 21 2005 (IPS) - As the fraught question of Iran’s nuclear activities comes up before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Thursday, there are indications of a softening up of the stands of a number of countries on the issue.

If present trends continue, Iran may not immediately face the threat of being referred by the IAEA to the United Nations Security Council for sanctions, according to analysts in this nuclear-armed country, which signed a deal with the United States, in July, for the transfer of civilian nuclear technology.

India had voted along with the U.S., and the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany), against Iran in September at a meeting of the IAEA’s board of governors, preparing the ground for Tehran’s possible referral to the Security Council.

But India has just announced that it will keep the Iran issue within the “IAEA’s jurisdiction” and not send it to the U.N. The decision was taken under the weight of domestic public opinion.

The U.S., which inaugurated a vigorous effort to isolate Iran and freeze its nuclear programme, has endorsed a compromise proposal made by Russia, under which Iran would be allowed to convert uranium oxides (yellow cake) to hexaflouride gas, but not to enrich it. Instead, Russia would enrich the gas and send the uranium back to Iran to be used as fuel in nuclear power plants.

Indications of a change in Washington’s stand have come from senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley.

Last week, President George W. Bush met Russian President Vladimir Putin in South Korea and soon after the meeting, Hadley said: “We hope that over time, Iran will see the virtue of this approach and it may provide a way out”.

The EU-3 have also backed the Russian-brokered compromise. Iran first rejected the proposal but subsequently said it would consider it.

“Evidently, the U.S. and the EU-3 have decided that their hardline stance towards Iran isn’t working,” says A.K. Pasha, professor at the Centre of West Asian Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. “The U.S. is in deep trouble in Iraq, where its policies have created a deep Shia-Sunni rift. It knows Iran wields great influence among the Iraqis and can create further trouble for Washington. So it’s willing to revise its earlier tough policy and give a negotiated compromise a chance.”

Russia and China have also made known their opposition to Iran’s referral to the Security Council. In September, they both abstained from voting against Iran, along with a majority of Non-Aligned states, a glaringly notable exception being India.

Their hands, as well as those of the Non-Aligned Movement, were strengthened by the latest report of the IAEA’s director-general. This noted the “progress” made by Iran in addressing “outstanding issues” about its nuclear programme, including delivering additional documents to the IAEA.

The IAEA’s report came in handy for the Indian government, which has been under unprecedented pressure to modify its stand on Iran. New Delhi’s stand is seen as unacceptably pro-Western and a breach of faith with Non-Alignment and independence in foreign policy-of which India has long been fiercely proud.

Opposition to New Delhi’s Sep.24 vote at the IAEA has been spearheaded by India’s communist parties, which provide critical support to the minority, Congress party-led coalition government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Late last month, the communist parties set up a joint front with some centrist parties to initiate a concerted campaign for a change in India’s stand on Iran and for the restoration of autonomy in foreign policy, which has been leaning towards Washington over the past year.

The new front commands the support of more than 100 members in India’s 545-strong lower house of parliament, in which the Congress party commands 140-odd seats. The Left’s support is critical, not just in numerical terms, but also because it carries enormous moral-political weight.

On Monday, the coordination committee of the ruling United Progressive Alliance(UPA)and the Left met and hammered out the new “consensus”, that India would oppose the transfer of the Iran issue outside the IAEA framework.

“This is definitely a victory for the Left and for many progressive causes,” says Pasha. “It could also pave the way for a partial healing of the damage done in the recent past to India-Iran relations by New Delhi’s tilt towards the U.S.”

India’s pro-U.S. tilt is reflected in a number of recent agreements signed between the U.S. and India, in particular a nuclear cooperation deal agreed in July, which makes a one-time exception for India in the global nuclear control order and permits the sale of civilian nuclear materials and equipment to India.

U.S.lawmakers have linked Congressional approval for the deal to a shift in India’s policy towards Iran from a friendly posture to an adversarial one. One of them said India must choose between the Iran of the Ayatollahs with its oil and gas, and the West with its advanced technology and mastery of nuclear power.

“India’s September vote at the IAEA was the price it was paying for the nuclear deal with America,” said Hamid Ansari, former Indian ambassador to the United Nations and to Iran. “India is under growing pressure from Washington to give up economic and energy cooperation with Iran, in particular the proposed 2,670-km long, seven billion dollar oil pipeline that would pass through Pakistan.”

India and Iran have close political relations. They worked together in Afghanistan to contain the influence of the Taliban. They have been discussing various proposals for cooperation in energy, trade and transit. The U.S. has told India it is uncomfortable with these proposals.

India’s new decision will help Iran temporarily. But it is far from clear that Iran’s reprieve from Western pressure will last.

“Iran is playing a complex game,” says Ansari. “On the one hand, it is cooperating with the IAEA and has offered it access to certain key individuals in the nuclear programme, as well as atomic facilities, including a military installation at Parchan.”

But at the same time, its parliament has passed a tough resolution which asks the government to stop allowing surprise checks by the IAEA of its atomic sites and to resume uranium enrichment if Teheran is referred to the Security Council, Ansari observed.

Iran is unlikely to go the whole hog with the Russian proposal because it implicitly denies what Iran considers to be its right to peaceful nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment.

“This is a sensitive issue,” says Ansari, “because Iran is being told it cannot be trusted with peaceful nuclear technology on its own soil. It will probably push for a modification of the Russian formula”.

Whether the U.S. adopts a flexible stance towards Iran, and whether Tehran succeeds in reaching an acceptable compromise, will be determined by a number of factors, including U.S. geopolitical calculations, the situation in Iraq, behind-the-scenes talks between Iran, Russia and the EU-3, and the ability of the West to split the ranks of the Non-Aligned Movement.