Iranian nuclear program waiting for Obama

Subscribe

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Goncharov)

The Iranian Six has again failed to come to terms on new UN sanctions against Iran. The question was discussed at the political director level of the foreign ministries of France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia, and the United States. As usual, the United States and its European allies wanted to expand sanctions and make Tehran halt its uranium enrichment, whereas Russia and China were against further sanctions. The sides decided to continue consultations.

Strange as it seems, this result was predetermined by the UN Security Council's recent resolution (1835) on Iran, which imposed no new sanctions.

On the one hand, the resolution calls on Iran to "comply fully and without delay with its obligations" under the past resolutions and cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), but on the other, it reaffirms the need for a "dual-track approach to the nuclear issue," and its "commitment within this framework to an early negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear issue..."

It is clear that the resolution's "dual-track approach" does not make sense in terms of the ultimatum to stop uranium enrichment "without delay" and return to the negotiating table. The Six are not likely to reach a compromise position although the United States and its European allies (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) have every reason to ask Russia and China: how long does it make sense to pressure Iran when there is no response? Iran does not listen to mandates, or even ultimatums.

There is little reason to listen. Today, the Six are drafting the sixth UN Security Council resolution on Iran in only two years. In July 2006 the Security Council adopted Resolution 1696, urging Iran to stop nuclear enrichment and return to the negotiating table. This document provided for sanctions against Iran if it failed to do so.

Since then, the situation has consistently repeated itself, and resolutions differ from each other only in minor details. Resolution 1696 was followed by resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803, and finally, 1835, but sanctions were imposed only by Resolution 1737. The others simply threaten Iran with tougher sanctions if it fails to halt uranium enrichment.

Nevertheless, this meeting of the Six had some intrigue linked with Barrack Obama's election as U.S. president. He promised to open the door to direct talks between America and Iran. Now many wonder how he will build U.S. relations with Iran.

Obama prefers not to reveal his cards, but he has defined his position clearly: Iran should not be allowed to become a nuclear power. However, there are still more than two months before Obama's inauguration, and President George W. Bush is not likely to soften his stance with Iran.

Literally within a couple of days of Obama's impressive victory, the United States toughened economic sanctions against Iran. The U.S. Treasury Department prohibited banks with U.S. licenses from making transit payments, which the Iranian government and banks were allowed to conduct under certain terms. Washington's action closed Iran's last loophole into the U.S. financial system. Tehran did not take it well.

Finally, Bush signed a decree extending Executive Order 12170 freezing Iranian government assets held in the United States under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which was adopted by President Jimmy Carter almost thirty years ago, on November 14, 1979, shortly after the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The Treasury Department was instructed to bloc all Iranian government assets in the United States, in all American banks and their foreign affiliates. Bush explained his decision by, among other things, the lack of normalized relations with Iran.

Under different circumstances, this decision might have gone unnoticed. But the devil is in the details. Bush met with Obama before signing the decree, and it is likely, they discussed the Iranian problem, including the general configuration of bilateral relations. Specifically they likely discussed the Executive Order's cancellation at the appropriate time. It seems obvious that Bush would not have decided to extend it, knowing that Obama would cancel it after his inauguration.

Incidentally, various analysts are giving Obama almost diametrically opposite recommendations on Iran. Some insist on the five principles, which provide for the toughest policy on Iran, while others recommend that he should soften U.S. stance.

A report of a group of 20 prominent scientists and diplomats will be published on November 18. But it was revealed on Thursday (when the Six met) that these analysts do not believe in the effectiveness of military or economic threats against Iran. They see no advantages in an armed action against Iran which would accomplish little, and urge the start of high-level diplomatic talks with Iran.

What concept will Obama choose? In December, the IAEA director general will issue one more report on the Iranian nuclear program. The UN Security Council will adopt the next resolution on Iran based largely on the report. Will it maintain sanctions against Iran in terms of a U.S. interpretation? The answer to this question will indicate Obama's decision.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

Newsfeed
0
To participate in the discussion
log in or register
loader
Chats
Заголовок открываемого материала