Time to Talk: The Case for Diplomatic Solutions on Iran

[helderheid]

http://conflictsforum.org/articlepdfs/time-to-talk.pdf

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The prospect of a nuclear Iran causes acute concern not only in
the United States and Israel, but also in Europe, the Middle East
and most of the rest of the world. This report does not seek to
quantify the likelihood of military action against Iran. It argues
that the consequences of any possible future military action could
be wholly counterproductive as well as highly dangerous. Diplomatic
solutions to the Iranian nuclear issue must be pursued resolutely.
Iran’s nuclear programme– a cause for international concern?

The Iranian administration insists that its nuclear activities are directed solely
towards a civil nuclear power programme. However, many states share the
conviction that Iran is dedicated to becoming a nuclear weapons power and
that it must not be allowed to develop the capability of producing nuclear weapon
materials. The problem is that a fully indigenous civil nuclear power programme
involves all the dual-use technology necessary to produce military fissile material.
Iran has enjoyed considerable domestic and some international support for its
refusal to relinquish its legal entitlements, including from the Arab League and the
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), but its record of misleading International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors has eroded international confidence in Iran’s
intentions and its willingness to agree to watertight controls on its nuclear
programme.

Since the international community was alerted to Iran’s secret nuclear activities
in 2002, various diplomatic strategies have been pursued. Despite many setbacks
some important progress has been achieved, such as the involvement of the major
players (China, France, Russia, the US, the UK and Germany), albeit indirectly in
the case of the US, and the formulation of serious incentives to induce Iranian
cooperation. Still, many within the US and Israeli administrations remain sceptical
that diplomacy can deliver. Accordingly, the military option not only remains on
the table but is also a real possibility in 2007.

Though debate has largely centred on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities,
Iran could also build a nuclear weapon by reprocessing plutonium. To ensure
that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon capability, both of these routes
would have to be blocked. The civil nuclear power reactor in Bushehr is due
to be started in September 2007 (nuclear fuel supplied by Russia will be on site
from March 2007).1 Beyond this date, military strikes on Bushehr could unleash
nuclear contamination so severe that it is unlikely that such strikes would be
undertaken from that point forth. If Bushehr is on the list of targets, these
considerations could hasten any plans for military action.


MUCH more>>>

http://conflictsforum.org/articlepdfs/time-to-talk.pdf

[Lerkfish]

1. excellent post

reccmd.

and as a side note: dumb question: who is that in your avatar?

[acmejack]

2. That's a Young Molly!

You're showing your age (or lack thereof...)

edit: omit spellchecking at your own peril

[Lerkfish]

5. LOL! now I see it. I wish it WERE an indicator of my young age, but alas

I"m 48.

[helderheid]

7. :D

[helderheid]

3. acmejack answered ya!

:hi:

[helderheid]

4. More: Consequences of possible military action

Consequences of possible military action

A US or Israeli led attack on Iran would likely unleash
a series of negative consequences. These might include:
➔ Strengthened Iranian nuclear ambitions;
➔ Even greater instability in the Middle East and
broader region, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan;
➔ Inflammation of the ‘war on terror’;
➔ Exacerbated energy insecurity and global economic hardship;
➔ Damage to developed and developing economies;
➔ Environmental degradation; and
➔ Civilian casualties.

IRAN’S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS STRENGTHENED: It is expected that if military
action were undertaken it could deepen the resolve of the Iranian regime to
become a nuclear weapons power and would likely lead to Iran’s withdrawal
from the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The threat of Iran building a nuclear
weapon could intensify, possibly prompting further proliferation in the region.

GREATER INSTABILITY: Iran’s links with Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the
West Bank and Gaza as well as Shia constituencies in Iraq, Afghanistan and
the Gulf States make regional retaliation against any military attack on Iran
likely. UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan could be particularly vulnerable,
with significant losses possible. The notion of a limited engagement in
Iran is likely to prove as illusory there as it has in Afghanistan and Iraq.

WAR ON TERROR INFLAMED: An attack on Iran would be perceived by some
as an aggression towards the Muslim world, fuelling anti-Western sentiment
and giving renewed impetus to extremists at home and abroad.

ENERGY CHAOS: Iran has the world’s second largest hydrocarbon reserves and
is currently the fourth largest oil producer. A disruption to the Iranian oil supply
could cause havoc in the global oil market. Iranian attempts, or even threats, to
attack oil transit through the Straits of Hormuz could send oil prices over $100
per barrel.

[helderheid]

6. Diplomacy is the only viable option

Iran has proved to be a difficult negotiating partner. But it cannot be said that the
potential for diplomacy has been explored fully when direct talks between Iran and
the US have not taken place. The major obstacle to full negotiations - namely, the
requirement that Iran stop enriching uranium before direct talks with the US can
begin - remains in place. If concessions are to be won, not only on the nuclear file
but also on broader regional issues, there is more work to be done on elaborating
the June 2006 package of incentives to address some of Iran's fundamental
concerns, particularly in relation to security guarantees. The idea of a 'Grand
Bargain' should not be dismissed outright. Real diplomatic options still exist, if a
face-saving solution can be found to convince the protagonists to approach the
table. The possible consequences of military action could be so serious that
governments have a responsibility to ensure that all diplomatic options have been
exhausted. At present, this is not the case.

The UK government is well positioned to articulate objections to military action.
Military action against Iran would work against the interests of the UK. The UK
should not lose this opportunity to advocate for direct US engagement;
strengthening the hand of reformists inside Iran by being seen to treat it fairly and
thereby laying foundations for a more functional relationship with Iran in the future.

[helderheid]

8. k