AMU Homeland Security Intelligence Middle East Opinion

Is Iran on a Path to Peace?

Brett Daniel Shehadey
Special Contributor for In Homeland Security

Iran is once again headed to the United Nations on Tuesday- this time in Geneva- to bat out a proposal of profound impact with a new team of diplomats. After Syria’s chemical weapons deal, Iran’s new leadership and more moderate majority favor in some kind of deal with the West and an international Iran- an Iran with greater respect, improved ties to the world, the lifting of sanctions, better trust. They are in favor of keeping civilian nuclear technology and allowing re-entry of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors and the potential for Iran signing the Additional Protocol that gives the inspectors greater latitude. That is their ‘expressed hope,’ anyway.

They have refused to concede to the West’s request that they ship uranium stockpiles before the talks- a steep request not even required of Assad. What should have been tried first or a late second request could be the reporting of all nuclear and radiological materials before the talks; which would then be independently verified through the international communities various intelligence agencies in a broad sense as accurate or inaccurate. That would have been a credibility step in the right direction.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said, “Of course we will negotiate regarding the form, amount, and various levels of (uranium) enrichment, but the shipping of materials out of the country is our red line.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry told the most powerful American Israeli lobby (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), “Right now, the window for diplomacy is cracking open. But I want you to know that our eyes are open, too… And I believe firmly that no deal is better than a bad deal.” He did however express hope in regards to Iran and the Middle East, after speaking with EU foreign policy head Catherine Ashton.

What is holding Iran and the West back is the extreme hawks. Even in Iran some hardliners still want the nuclear option and it is possible that whatever deal is eventually reached between the Islamic Republic and the international community may not fully get to the end of any acceptable nuclear compromise.

Unlike chemical weapons in Syria, Iran already has a functioning nuclear reactor in Bushehr- their sole nuclear power plant. They are planning another in Darkovin. They have their own home soil uranium mines, at least three enrichment plants, and even “secret” installations that allegedly hide weapons grade uranium. The Russians have been instrumental at helping them with nuclear technology and selling conventional weapons no doubt exploiting the economic gains and geo-political allegiance of a “special” relationship not far off from the US-Israel bilateral relation.

The critical impasse has been the denial to let international inspectors from the IAEA into those facilities where suspected WMD testing took place. That led to the present economic sanctions. However, it is important to note well before that, Iran experienced the label as the “Axis of Evil”, an unstable political outcome through the invasion of a next-door enemy (Iraq); pinned from both sides since 2003 with the “Freedom” operations on both sides of its borders. Its natural reaction was that of fear. It first carried out a cessation of a decades long desire for nuclear weapons after the initial Iraq invasion which was both a concession and protective measure. Reasoning was simple, ‘If the US is going to invade our enemy Saddam Hussein for suspected WMDs, then they may invade us for the same. Americans are crazy right now with this Global War on Terrorism stuff.’

Iraq turned out not to have nuclear weapons or to have been building them for some time. At the same time, Libya publicly gave up its nuclear program for peace too. Iran saw that North Korea could get away with nuclear weapons building after Iraq was a dismal failure and they also learned lessons from Libya, who was attacked after they relinquished their plan for the nuclear bomb. So it is a simple Iranian calculation of Iran’s national interest: ‘Event A: Libya gives up nuclear program and is attacked by the Americans; Event B: North Korea gets more attention and is not attacked by keeping a nuclear weapons program. We will decide on event option B and build nuclear weapons with mixed signals.”

And thus began a vehement anti-Israel and US diplomatic and covert operations campaign with a renewed but secret nuclear weapons program. A low-intensity war between the three powers among various regional actors led to greater attempts of unconventional and clandestine assassinations, penetration of airspace, drones, espionage and coercive diplomacy. All sides pushed the escalating conflict- the West because of the interference into it dual-state and regional strategic interests; and Iran because of fear. Through the acceleration of conflict, military operations other than war; Iran looked again to the bomb and “advanced” technology to counter the overtures and threats by Israel and the US.

Fear begot fear in a classic escalation with more and more Israel-Iran contention; each state racketing up threats and Israel making charges and warning preventive strikes once they deemed Iran to have crossed the red-line or negotiations to have failed. This is not to say that such things are easily resolved or that there were many alternatives. But for a while, the US was on-board, and then uncertainty mixed with the reality of attacking a Muslim population of some 75 million people, logistical problems, and the fact that that would not only destroy civilian lives, start another unwanted large-scale operation, threaten the Gulf, but create an even bigger and more determined enemy bent on retaliation and nuclear weapons.

So while Iran can be blamed for booting out the weapons inspectors and not fully cooperating with nuclear non-proliferation protocols denying full access, Iran cannot be blamed for the escalation and exaggeration of capabilities or attempts to scare off their national threats on their border and what they view as the Israeli instigators (their secret nuclear weapons capable state enemy).

What should have been easily calculable response to neo-realist state analyst was in fact a combination of leaning too much in Israel’s direction and relying too much on a military solution. While the neo-realist model is not ideal or choice, it is in fact a more accurate presentation of Iran’s state-based foreign policy decisions- even more so than ideological or religious but not exclusive of them. Thus, one must apply this template in order to rightly perceive the eyes of the enemy.

Fortunately, the US backed down from greater measures of excessive and coercive diplomatic relations with Iran but rightly held firm on economic sanctions, leaving them in place. What is easily forgotten was that the Iranians were already under constant threat of US attack, in their minds, simply by the presence and proximity of US forces and sheer operational advantage. Other on-going activities taking place simultaneously that need not be mentioned in detail.

With the US dropping its attention from Iran but holding sanctions in place allowed Iran to remain a relative pariah state to the world and suffer the ramifications for deifying international norms while at the same time regaining a cool-head for reasonable diplomacy with new political leadership and a new strategy for international diplomatic engagement instead of isolationism- forced and or defensive.

What Iran has asked for is to not be threatened and given respect. What Iran has not earned yet is respect due to a lack of total disclosure. They want a lifting of economic sanctions first. That is understandable as they have were utterly humiliated from their national perch. On the other hand, the West is right to keep pressure and remain highly suspicious of Iran. Taking smaller steps might be one solution. The other is to give them everything they want on a temporary and conditional basis. Demonstrate respect without losing control (e.g. the West lifts sanctions with the immediate option to lift them per review and progress of UN-Iran nuclear progress in talks, reforms and greater oversight). The West must remember that Iran greatly needs to appease its people- both hardliners and moderates while Iran must keep in mind that the international community has no tolerance for deception or tricks and that the future of Iran depends on the decision that it makes in good-faith here and now- the next sanctions and additional actions may be much much worse. Russia too must play a larger role in negotiations in preventing another nuclear state in the region- even if they have less reason to do so- they will still have some reason to do so for their own interests.

While certainly not on a path of repentance, Iran could chose a path of peace and reconciliation.

Comments are closed.