Global Insight Perspective

Significance

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report into Iran's suspect nuclear programme offered few surprises; that Iran was found to have rejected calls to suspend enrichment following a 30-day deadline now sets the country on a collision course with the UN Security Council (UNSC).

Implications

The most immediate international reaction was one of caution, with voices urging restraint over how best to deal with Iran's nuclear belligerence. Although a number of world leaders have urged greater diplomacy to resolve the current impasse, the talk of punitive action, including economic sanctions, is steadily rising.

Outlook

Foreign Ministers of the five permanent members of the UNSC plus Germany, are expected to meet next week to discuss the nuclear crisis. Divisions within the Security Council may scupper U.S.-backed calls for tough action against Iran but the longer the crisis takes to unfold, the greater the potential for some form of agreement on future international political and economic reprisals.

Deepening Crisis

The conclusions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report delivered by the watchdog's head Mohammed El Baradei on Friday 28 April offered little that was not already known. However, the fact that Iran was again found not to have sufficiently cooperated with the IAEA and, more crucially, refused to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment activities, provided further ammunition for the country's international opponents to rein in the Islamic Republic. What measures will be taken towards such an end remain very much under discussion. According to the IAEA, Iranian negotiators had made little progress since the agency's previous assessment and 'gaps remain in the agency's knowledge with respect to the scope and content of Iran's centrifuge programme.' The report continued: 'Because of this and other gaps in the agency's knowledge including the role of the military in Iran's nuclear programme, the agency is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.'

Reaction to the report was unsurprisingly mixed, but the leading powers in the UNSC were agreed on demanding that Iran be made to pay - in one form or another - for its intransigence. Given that in the run-up to the IAEA report a split emerged between the opinions of Western nations over how best to deal with Iran and those of Russia and China, officials from the latter two in particular remained resolute to their calls for diplomacy to supersede any other action. How long diplomacy can hold out, however, remains very much to be seen. The U.S. administration called for a UNSC resolution against Iran under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter that could pave the way for elaborate economic sanctions and even military action. U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said after the report that he would press for an immediate resolution that would force Iran to cease its enrichment activities. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, meanwhile, said it was now urgent for the UNSC to offer a united response to Iran. 'We will now be asking the Security Council to increase the pressure on Iran, so that the international community can be assured that its nuclear programme is not a threat to peace and security,' Straw said. Having conducted almost two years of negotiations with Iran, officials from France and Germany were similarly critical of the Islamic Republic's vow not to respect the IAEA's rulings. Senior representatives from both countries labelled Iran's failure to comply with the UN deadline as 'unacceptable.'

What will determine the forcefulness of the international community's response to Iran is the position of Russia and China in the burgeoning nuclear crisis. Iranian leaders continue to look towards the two states as a sure way to stifle principally U.S.-led efforts to bring Iran to book. Although the current geo-strategic situation dictates Russian and Chinese support for the Iranian establishment, the longer Iran refuses to compromise on its enrichment activities, the more likely backing for Iran will wither among the two veto-wielding powers. This by no means suggests, however, that the two will back any potential economic - let alone military - action against Iran in the near future. China's UN envoy Wang Guangya reiterated his country's opposition to Western-backed calls for a Chapter 7 resolution. 'I believe that invoking Chapter 7 will [make things] more complicated and the implications will lead events to a direction that is uncertain,' the ambassador said. For it's part, while demanding that Iran now undertake 'concrete steps' to allay international fears over its atomic programme, Russian officials similarly refused to countenance strong punitive measures to put an end to Iran's growing belligerence.

Unshaken by Threats

Having fallen out with what were once described as its international 'partners', the Iranian establishment would be forgiven for contemplating a radical rethink of its global status. Compromise, however, seems to be absent from the Iranian lexicon in the nuclear affair. President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad offered by far the clearest reaction to the IAEA report when he told reporters that Iran 'did not give a damn' about UNSC resolutions, nor would the country give up its atomic 'rights'. In the midst of an alarming global crisis, Iran shows little inclination towards backing off. In a sign of greater defiance, the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed Saidi, on Saturday (29 April) confirmed that Iran was working to accelerate its enrichment programme, with work under way on highly advanced centrifuge designs. In classic fait accompli style, however, Ahmedinejad set the stall over Iran's nuclear progress. ‘The Islamic Republic will not negotiate with anyone on its absolute right to use peaceful nuclear technology. This is our red line and we will never give it up,' the president said in a statement.

If further evidence were needed of Iran's refusal to buckle under international pressure, the country's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani told students at the capital Tehran's Sharif University that Iran would reconsider its relationship with the IAEA if sanctions were imposed on the country. Senior officials have also threatened to remove Iran from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPP) should the crisis necessitate it. 'They should not think that they can make us happy with sweets. Iran is allergic to the terms of the suspension [of enrichment]. Our programme is to continue research and development in enrichment and to have the nuclear fuel cycle,' Larijani said. The Iranian Foreign Ministry offer was described as 'maximum cooperation' with the IAEA so long as the country's nuclear file remained within the remit of the IAEA. By involving the UNSC, the international community is escalating the crisis, Foreign Ministry officials suggested. Should the UNSC take any 'radical measures', the ministry warned, Iran would also 'take measures as a consequence.'

Outlook and Implications

The Iranian nuclear impasse is now reaching a critical juncture. With the Islamic Republic bent of fulfilling its nuclear 'rights', Foreign Ministers of the five permanent members of the UNSC plus Germany will meet on 9 May to discuss the way forward. Demands from Western powers for immediate political and economic sanctions against Iran will continue to be resisted by Russia and China. In the absence of any Iranian future compromise, however, such support may no longer hold. The current crisis remains at a containable level so long as the two sides remain engaged in debate. The longer the crisis takes to unfold, however, the deeper the international divide becomes. The Iranian leadership has calculated that the regional and global situation currently works in its favour to wade off any potential military threat. Indeed the imbroglio in which the United States. finds itself in Iraq is perhaps reason alone why military action is off limits right now. However, economic reprisals have not been discounted should the Iranian position offer little by way of compromise in the short term.

The burgeoning nuclear crisis has ramifications not only for Iran's own stability, but for the stability of the Middle Eastern region as a whole. Having undergone remarkable - externally imposed - change over the past few years, the region is certainly in no rush for further warfare. Should the United States and Iran continue to face off one another as the two have done for the past quarter of a century, Iran's alleged pursuit of a covert military nuclear programme may finally provide the spark for a more dangerous confrontation between the two foes. Diplomacy, it seems, has never been more urgently desired.

Contact: Raul Dary

24 Hartwell Ave.
Lexington, MA 02421, USA
Tel: 781.301.9314
Cel: 857.222.0556
Fax: 781.301.9416
raul.dary@globalinsight.com

www.globalinsight.com and www.wmrc.com