Print
www.geopolitical.co.za
January 20, 2010
Summary
Iran is still waiting for Western approval after agreeing to engage in a Uranium swap deal for its civilian nuclear power program.
Analysis
More important than the ability to flex muscles and exercise power in international politics, is the need to exercise patience. After long protracted diplomatic wrangling and intense naval-gazing on all sides involved in negotiations on Iran’s civilian nuclear program, Tehran agreed that it is in its best interests to engage in a Uranium swap deal. After all the dramatic news headlines hurling allegations on Iran’s supposed ill-intent, one would expect the world media to applaud the fact that Iran is willing to allay international fears by agreeing to a complicated, costly, and time consuming process of shipping a significant portion of its Uranium reserves to a foreign destination for further enrichment.
On the 6th of January Iran’s Mehr news agency and Press TV reported that Mr. Hossein Ebrahimi, head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, expressed frustration at the fact that even though Iran has agreed to the Uranium swap deal, it is still waiting for a positive response from the West. According to Mr. Ebrahimi Iran is ready to engage in the Uranium swap in either Japan, Brazil, Turkey, or the Kish island off Iran’s coast in the Persian Gulf. Iran is furthermore ready to conclude the “deal” in one month’s time. This implies that Tehran’s policy makers are not only ready to allay Western fears as to the intent it has with its nuclear program, but additionally, that it is serious about the future of developing nuclear technology for research- and energy purposes.
Mr. Ebrahimi, quoted by the Mehr News Agency did, however, also include a note of caution by indicating that, "Iran proposed a rational way for fulfilling its needs to supply the nuclear fuel required for the Tehran Research Reactor and if they (Western powers) are rational they will give a positive response to the proposal." He furthermore stated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has agreed with Iran's proposal and has asked the US, France and Russia to act on it. But, if Western powers do not respond positively within the one month window period Iran has opened to conclude the deal, Tehran will continue with its own domestic program to enrich Uranium. The latter issue remains one of the central concerns the IAEA has with regard to Iran’s nuclear program.
Underlying much of the diplomatic tug of war on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program is not necessarily the threat of Tehran desiring to possess a nuclear weapon. More important is the need the international nuclear club of nations have to control nuclear technologies, nuclear fuel supplies, and ultimately to dominate the world’s nuclear marketplace. In this regard it is interesting to note that Chinese, Russian, and South American analysts bemoaned the recent appointment of Mr. Yukiya Amano as head of the IAEA. His appointment is interpreted as a move by the USA to install a pro-US person in a highly controversial position. This implies that Mr. Amano’s appointment as head of the IAEA creates a working mechanism to manage the international nuclear market and consequently to give the USA an extraordinary amount of leverage to control development in this field.
The discontentment with Mr. Amano’s appointment is furthermore related to a widely held concern that strict control over nuclear technologies will deprive developing countries of freedom to choose ways of developing energy alternatives. This is, of course, a crucial issue in a period where global warming, CO2 gas emissions from coal-fired electricity plants, and a looming global energy crisis is forcing developing states such as China, Iran, Brazil, and South Africa to give serious consideration to nuclear energy as a somewhat cleaner alternative to existing electricity generation infrastructures.
On the 9th of December ’09, during the first reception Mr. Amano held for member states of the IAEA after assuming the position of Director General of the organisation, he stressed the fact that nuclear energy has been enjoying growing acceptance as, “... a stable and clean source of energy that can help to mitigate the impact of global warming. Many Member States have made it clear that they attach great importance to launching new nuclear power programmes, or expanding existing programmes.” By acknowledging the future importance of nuclear energy as an alternative, Mr. Amano also highlights the strategic importance related to nuclear technologies.
If the critics of Mr. Amano’s appointment are correct, it means that the future of nuclear energy and the distribution of related technologies are bound to remain a highly charged and contentious issue. It is also interesting to note that Mr. Minty, a long serving and experienced South African diplomat with significant experience in the IAEA, was a serious contender for the position of Director General. He was not considered for the position, which is in some quarters furthermore interpreted as part of the great power meddling in the affairs of the IAEA. On this point it is also ironic to note that South African media paid no attention to the possible sleight of hand tricks that cost a prominent South African the position. It is nevertheless the case that Mr. Amano will have to pay significant attention to the question of supply of nuclear fuel. If the Iranian case is anything to go by, access to nuclear fuel (enriched Uranium), may additionally become a long-winded trench filled with all kinds of international policy- and interest booby traps planted by states that play a domineering role in the nuclear club.
On another proverbial front, recent developments in Yemen once again illustrates the point that the Middle East & Persian Gulf regions are like highly flammable substances just waiting for the correct mix of repressive governments, terrorist movements, and international role-players to ignite more battlefields in the desert. Given this volatility it is important to remain vigilant on the front of conventional and nuclear weapons development and deployment. From a geostrategic point of view the possession of a nuclear weapon may, under such circumstances, still be seen as a real means of restraint, implying that it can act as effective deterrent to any foreign aggressor. The nuclear weapon proliferation scenario Western nations fear so much in the Middle East & Persian Gulf is a question only the future will be able to answer. The lure of nuclear weapons remain, and given instability in regional theatres such as the Middle East, and the Caucasus, nuclear weapons will in all likelihood remain on the agenda of states, leaders, and organisations that would like to deter, or threaten adversaries.
Reference: Amano, Y. 2009. <http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2009/amsp2009n023.html>
Comments
Sort: Most recent | First to last | Liked
1 
2
that Iran accepted a version of the deal that would allow enough residual uranium to make a bomb is obviously not what the west is looking for.
What's most interesting to me is that it seems russia will be falling in line with the Western line, isolating China. Let's see if China has enough confidence in its place in the world to brave international isolation on a high-profile issue.
3 0
I think it would be naive to suggest that developing a nuclear bomb is not a goal of Iran. After all, a nuclear deterrent would protect the country from suffering the fate of Iraq in American hands and would counter Israeli nuclear capacities.
Despite such an interest it is also unfair to discount the country's desire to develop civilian nuclear power. While Iran is rich in oil it is not rich in refinement capacity. Energy is a serious issue for the country that nuclear could address.
Taking these two factors into account I think suggesting that the original article misrepresented Iran's position is unfair. Rather, I think that the author was merely pointing out that Iran has, in principle, agreed to a swap and the West has not responded positively despite being the ones promoting the idea. Postponed or not, a decrease in total refined uranium production would be the end result.
One thing that we can be sure of is that both Iran and the West will continue the diplomatic rhetoric while battling over the true issue at hand: the control of the strategically important Middle East and its abundant oil reserves.
You imply that Iran accepted the original deal. This is false. Iran rejected the deal on the table, instead countering with their own proposal which would have the effect of delaying the process of shipping uranium out of Iran. This delay would create enough time for Iran to enrich enough uranium for a bomb in addition to the agreed-upon amount being shipped out.
Iran still seems to be dragging feet and delaying any progress in negotiations. Believe what you will about whether the whole thing is 'fair' or not, this recent episode is not indicative of any 'change of heart' on the part of Iran.
We have seen time and time again that Russia pays lip service to the West while making other arrangements covertly.
Publicly announced Russian assurances to the West on the issue cannot be relied upon.