NEW YORK. (RIA Novosti political commentator Dmitry Kosyrev).
"The political and diplomatic potential to solve it [Iran's nuclear problem] within the IAEA framework has not been exhausted," said Russian President Vladimir Putin at a news conference after a meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush.
These words became the highlight of his visit for American media. They signified that the latest initiative by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to involve more countries outside Europe in the American policy of pressure against Iran had failed.
Aside from Russia, India and China, the other two potential recruits for the American initiative, had the same message for Washington. And, as reported by diplomatic sources, Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi did not have a prior agreement, although the leaders of the three were at a UN summit in New York and held meetings at top and ministerial levels. Their positions coincided from the start and could be summarized as follows: Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear power and cannot be dealt with the way the U.S. is trying to.
Moscow, New Delhi and Beijing see eye to eye with America on the issue of the "military atom"; the only difference is in the means to be used to solve the problem. They also agree with Tehran's view that nuclear weapons contradict Islam.
Evidently, it would be pointless for the U.S. to continue insisting at a September 19 meeting of the board of directors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on its idea of referring the "Iranian nuclear file" to the UN Security Council. Even if Washington secures 20 out of 35 votes in the IAEA, it will not be a convincing majority. The UN Security Council will not impose punitive sanctions against Iran now because of the stand taken by at least two of its permanent members - Moscow and Beijing. Other Security Council members may also take into consideration IAEA's lack of hard evidence that Iran has violated the non-proliferation regime. There are only politically-motivated suspicions entertained by individual members of the organization.
The U.S. and its partners on the international scene should now change their strategy, tactics and the tone in which they speak to Iran. There are other reasons in addition to the attitude adopted by Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi. First, it is the hurricane that destroyed one of the most beautiful U.S. cities, leaving no money for a large-scale military operation against Iran. The "price of Katrina", or the sum necessary to remedy the effects of flooding in New Orleans, is estimated at 200 billion dollars, which is more than the cost of the war in Iraq. And revelations that the means allocated by U.S. Congress to prepare against natural disasters were spent "on Iraq" instead make the situation even clearer.
Secondly, the anniversary session of the UN General Assembly with high-level diplomacy played into the hands of Iran, rather than the U.S.
The diplomatic debut made by Iran's new president at the UN summit was very effective. Mohammad Ahmadinejad may be said to have stolen the show. Everyone looked forward to his Saturday speech (which was expected to announce new nuclear initiatives), and everyone commented on his words both before and after bilateral meetings.
His speech, which began like a muezzin's sermon on justice between nations, contained the unbeatable argument that it is impermissible for one group of countries to deny another group access to nuclear energy thereby holding back its development. He reminded that the IAEA rules specified it was the duty of nuclear countries to assist others in the peaceful utilization of the atom. He was warmly applauded.
The position of a leader speaking openly on a subject that others, who think likewise, fear to mention, is advantageous for Iran. The UN has heard in the past many fulminating speeches challenging America, the West and the existing world order. Presidents of Venezuela and Belarus Hugo Chavez and Alexander Lukashenko, Cuban parliament speaker Alarcon de Quesada, and many others vied for the laurels of the most fearless orator. But none of them found themselves in the eye of the diplomatic storm and felt as confident as the new Iranian leader. And no one else could have uttered so effectively the words "time of usage of force is finished".
Whatever the outcome of the September 19 meeting, it is clear that if Ahmadinejad succeeds in obtaining any agreement on the nuclear crisis acceptable to the U.S. or Europe, the developing and Muslim world will get a new and respected leader. One who could do a great deal to close the dangerous rift we have witnessed in recent years between the western world and the world of Islam.
