#44 How Democracy and Diplomacy Can Solve the Iranian Nuclear Issue

The idea I will put forth in this article may raise a couple of eyebrows around the world. Iran’s record in the field of human rights and democracy is terrible; certainly when compared to Western countries. However, in the Islamic world, it is actually one of the democratic front-runners. The 2006 local elections demonstrated that Iran is not as totalitarian as we all like to believe. Furthermore, it demonstrated that the Iranian people do not wish for a collision course, nor do they want any further humiliation of their country. Therefore, it is imperative that the United States re-starts diplomatic relations with Iran and that it returns to the negotiating table. It is the only option left to solve the current nuclear crisis.

The sore wounds left by the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the ensuing hostage crisis still guide American response to Iran’s actions. The United States has always relied on its unmatched military might to influence relations with Teheran. However, with Iraq sliding more and more into outright chaos and the United States’ military still tied down there, the Pentagon’s plans to use force against Iran could be of better use in Hollywood as an interesting movie script. This leaves diplomacy as the only feasible measure to provide a solution to the urgent problem, because every day that inaction dominates Western policy, Iran is coming closer to a nuclear weapon.

The argument for diplomacy actually lies in the reasons why Iran wants to obtain a nuclear weapon. It is not for offensive purposes that Iran wants a nuke, because offensive use of the weapon would be suicidal. It is simply not possible for Iran to obtain enough nuclear weapons to conduct an offensive doctrine. However, the weapon would be very useful in diplomatic relations, as a nuclear weapon would demand instant international respect.

It is exactly the aforementioned respect that Iran is after. Ever since the Teheran hostage crisis, the US has not conducted any diplomatic relations with Iran. It has also imposed a strict sanctions regime on Iran, which lays a heavy burden on Iran’s unstable economy. Therefore, the UN-imposed sanctions of December 2006 will have little effect; they will only strengthen the feeling amongst Iranians that the whole world is against them. And the Iranian people are actually the key to success in diplomacy.

The power of the Iranian people is not to be underestimated. In 2006, president Ahmadinejad suffered a remarkable defeat in the local elections. The Iranian people clearly spoke out against his hard-line anti-Israel and nuclear stances. With the 2008 parliamentary elections in mind, Ahmadinejad will have to moderate his position on the nuclear issue. Key here is a respectful and decent offer at the negotiations table. The Iranian people will not tolerate a rejection of such an offer and they will punish the president once again in the 2008 parliamentary election. However, continuation of the current policy against Iran and the threat of force will unify the Iranians once again behind their leaders and it will empower them to continue their enrichment program.

Therefore, the time for diplomacy is now. If the United States accepts that it cannot resolve this issue with force and actually makes a sincere attempt at the negotiating table, the Iranian government will have to come forward as well, making a speedy and desirable solution of the issue a more feasible outcome. It may seem like a paradox, but it will be internal democratic accountability, and not sanctions, that will force the Iranian leaders to concede.

- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Jorik Reijmer

#23 Nukes R Us

Of the known nuclear powers (USA, UK, France, China, Russia, India, Pakistan), five have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. These five certainly do not represent the sole powers of this era, but when including India and Pakistan, they constitute a very interesting mix. The nuclear powers consist of great nations from the old world, from today's world, from the world of the future, and even from a never has been that probably never will be. The UK and especially France are powers of the past, while the USA is modern day's dominant force. China and India represent the future, whereas Russia is a mix of the old, the present and the future. Finally, Pakistan continues to struggle, with significantly less prospects for regional or global dominance than the others.

Besides these known nuclear powers, there is the particular case of Israel, which follows a policy of nuclear ambiguity. The country has been threatened to the extent that if they really were the dreadful killers that a number of people paint them out to be, they might as well have used the nukes by now. Since they have not, this can mean one of two things: either they don't have them, or, more likely, their possession of nuclear weapons does not form a major threat to global security. With the recent "slip of the tongue" by Prime Minister Olmert during a trip to Germany, a stark warning was sent to countries like Iran that Israel will follow a policy of an eye for an eye if warranted, however.

Another interesting case is North Korea, which claims to have successfully conducted a nuclear test on October 9, 2006. This claim is one of the rare statements originating from Pyong Yang that is actually taken seriously by the rest of the world. Besides the above eight, there are a number of countries who have attempted to acquire nuclear weapons but have failed or given up trying for varying reasons. The most famous examples are Libya and Iraq. There are probably few people who would not agree with the notion that their failure to attain these weapons is a good thing. In the case of Iraq, I am of course not referring to the recent allegations in the buildup to the war there, but rather to their nuclear weapon research program during the 1970s and 1980s (which Israel destroyed in 1981).

There also exists a group of four nations, namely South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, which at one point possessed nuclear weapons but willingly gave them up (Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine transferred the weapons to Russia in 1995 and 1996). Additionally, there are countries such as the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Japan and Germany, who would be able to produce nuclear weapons in a matter of 1 or 2 years, if not months.

Today's most pressing nuclear case is Iran, which claims to be developing a nuclear program for civilian purposes only, but this is widely viewed around the world with distrust. The fear of a nuclear Iran has set the stage for a possible nuclear arms race in the Middle East that not even Israel was able to bring about. Predominantly Sunni nations such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are apprehensive of Shiite Iran's growing regional influence. Add the nuclear bomb to Iran's arsenal and there might really be something to worry about for these nations. Well aware of this fact, Jordan's King Abdullah II followed Egypt and Saudi Arabia's lead recently in saying that in light of current events, Jordan would be looking to develop a nuclear program “for peaceful purposes." Other states that have expressed a sudden interest in nuclear technology are Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.

These "peaceful purposes" might sound fine in theory, but in practice it would mean an increase in the plausibility of perhaps the most turbulent region in the world becoming a nuclear arms nest. If the Saudi Royal family or Egypt's President Mubarak and his cronies were to lose power to radical groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the attained nuclear know-how could be used for particularly nasty purposes. Ironically enough, if the Mullahs in Iran were to give way to the opposition, the likelihood of a nuclear disaster would probably decrease dramatically.

Iran's nuclear program is thus proving to be not only a serious issue for Israel and the United States, but also for Europe, the Middle East and, yes, even for Islam itself. Iraq has involuntarily positioned itself as the center of this battle between Shia and Sunni Islam, but it appears ready to spread rapidly beyond its borders with increasing sophistication and precariousness.