Engaging Today's Global Citizens

What to Do About Iran

A diplomatic solution is still possible

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has decided to send the Iranian nuclear case to the UN Security Council for possible action. In response, Iran has announced that they will stop fully cooperating with the IAEA and will only allow the most minimal inspections required under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Action by the UN Security Council will not be taken before March 6, when the next regularly scheduled IAEA meeting takes place. At that meeting, Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA's director general, will present the evidence collected by the inspectors to the Security Council, which will then discuss whether punitive measures should be taken against Iran. Possible responses might involve the curtailment of diplomatic relations, imposing economic sanctions, or at the most severe level, military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. With the situation deteriorating, what must happen to reverse this downward spiral, and what hope is there for a diplomatic solution?

Defining the Goals

First, we must be clear about our goals. The United States not only wants Iran out of the nuclear business entirely but has made no secret that it would like to see (or encourage) regime change within the country. However, the international community is much more focused—they want to ensure that Iran does not achieve a successful weapons program and stays within the boundaries of nonproliferation agreements.

While the United States has been pressing the IAEA to recommend Iran's case to the Security Council for months, the international community has acted now only because several separate strands of information have appeared that for the first time factually suggest Iran may be pursuing nuclear weapons. The Iranians have turned over several documents—likely from the A.Q. Khan network—that describe the making of uranium pits for nuclear weapons, and the IAEA has written a report connecting domestic nuclear energy programs with possible military programs within Iran.

Finding Common Ground

Whatever the outcome now, we cannot achieve our goals if the United States and the international community remain at odds over the definition of those goals. The international community seeks an Iran that is in conformity with the rules of the nonproliferation agreements and so is in good standing in international law. Under this interpretation, Iran would likely be allowed to maintain a civilian nuclear program—one with stringent oversight, intrusive inspections, and close monitoring. The United States is pushing for more, arguing that because of its history, Iran should no longer be allowed to have any nuclear programs whatsoever.

This argument would place Iran as the only nation under such tight constraints—excepting Iraq. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN Security Council took away its right to any nuclear program. The United States would like the Security Council to impose the same sanctions on Iran. Whether the international community acquiesces to the United States on this matter is yet to be seen. But the framework is there for the international community to take action against Iran as it did with Iraq.

The Need for International Unity

This brings us to the second point: cohesion. The international community must stay together on the Iranian case or not only will there not be a successful resolution to the Iran situation but it will lead to further strain of the already-damaged nonproliferation agreements. This will not be easy, as diverse forces will attempt to convince nations to go their separate ways.

In opposition to the US stance seeking additional punishments and restrictions on Iran, several other countries—notably Russia, China, and India—have other concerns. Russia has been negotiating a $1 billion deal with Iran to build a civilian nuclear power plant inside Iran, and that deal would be threatened by punitive action against Iran. China depends on Iran for 12 percent of its oil imports. India is currently negotiating the construction of a major natural gas pipeline from Iran, through Pakistan, and to India, as part of India's growing thirst for energy. And, generally speaking, Iran is the globe's fourth largest exporter of oil. Sanctions against Iran would likely cause prices to spike. Under these divergent conditions, maintaining a unified international front will be a challenge.

Which Action Best?

Finally, as the international community works over the next month to refine its goals, maintain its cohesion, and decide what action it will take, it should also consider carrots as well as sticks. As a comparison, it is interesting to note that during ongoing negotiations with North Korea, the six parties engaged in those talks have been willing to offer North Korea far more than is currently being offered to Iran. Negative security assurances provide promises to North Korea that the international community will not seek the overthrow of the current government. There have been offers to restart negotiations on normalization of relations with the West, something that has not happened since the 1950s Korean War. And concrete proposals for energy assistance would provide sorely needed electricity for a population largely cut off from international trade and energy transfers. None of these incentives have been on the table for Iran.

What lesson should Iran take away from an environment in which North Korea—a country that has developed nuclear weapons outside of international agreements—is offered a range of incentives to come back into the fold, while Iran—a country that does not yet have nuclear weapons and has so far maintained its enrichment activities within international law—is not.

The international community will be discussing these issues throughout the following month. But this is the time for firm, clear thinking, not rash reaction. As Mohamed ElBaradei recently stated, "We are reaching a critical phase, but it is not a crisis situation. It's about confidence-building, and it is not about an imminent threat." Iran does not have nuclear weapons now, and the most pessimistic appraisals of how long it will take Iran to enrich enough material to make even one weapon say it will take at least five years. Also, while Iran has withdrawn voluntary cooperation with the IAEA (Iran had been allowing inspections under the Additional Protocol of the NPT), it is still cooperating with the IAEA under the legal requirements of the NPT. The IAEA is still on the ground in Iran and able to monitor events as they unfold. And the international community is united in its stated intentions of keeping Iran from building nuclear weapons. A diplomatic solution to the Iranian situation is still possible, if the United States and Iran want one.

—Matt Martin