Atlantic Community:Global Must Read Article "Iran Deadline Expires Today: What Next?"

Iran Deadline Expires Today: What Next?

Annette Pölking

Inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency conducted surprise inspections in Tehran on May 13, finding 1,300 centrifuges enriching uranium and running smoothly. Together with recent aggressions toward Western nations such as the hostage-taking of the British sailors or the imprisonment of Iranian-Americans, Tehran’s defiance of the international community will set the stage for further debates on Iran in the UN Security Council when the deadline set for Iran to suspend its nuclear program under Resolution 1747 runs out today.

With Europeans apparently willing to continue negotiations, the question is what the United States will do now. The Iran policy of the Bush administration has so far focused on isolation and containment through unilateral and multilateral sanctions and financial restrictions, international alliance-building, and the build-up of military force in the Persian Gulf. Responding to pressure from the EU-3, the US offered conditional talks on Iran’s nuclear program—an offer not accepted by the Iranians. Four options have solidified in the US policy debate: push for tougher UN sanctions, support regime change from within, commence air strikes, or negotiate a grand bargain with Tehran.

1. Push For Tougher UN Sanctions
Even though the recent inspections showed that Iran has learned how to enrich on a larger scale—and to some the sanctions demanding the suspension of enrichment were meant to prevent exactly this—US undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns has expressed willingness to go along with a third round of sanctions. Over time, sanctions should have an impact on Tehran’s regime: Iran is an oil-rich regional power, but it is not domestically stable. The pressure of external sanctions hurts Ahmadinejad’s administration, which was elected on a ticket emphasizing economic reform and the fight against unemployment, neither of which has so far been addressed. UN sanctions, coupled with the financial restrictions of the Iran Freedom Support Act (IFSA) of September 2006, will drive Iran further into isolation.

Many commentators fear that Russia and China will not be willing to extend the sanctions now in place. Security Council resistance like this could end the sanctions policy and lead to a break-up of the international coalition.

2. Support Regime Change from Within
On September 30, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Iran Freedom Support Act (IFSA), which combines restrictions on trade and financial transactions with Iran with a $75 million program for democracy promotion, thereby combining outside pressure with the support of oppositional forces inside Iran. IFSA reflects the “democratic peace” idea, assuming that a democratic nuclear Iran does not pose a threat to the international community.

The Heritage Foundation argues that IFSA funds should be directed toward achieving a popular referendum to change the constitution, the source of this undemocratic “mullahcracy.” Critics of this approach point to the fact that no consistent oppositional movement exists. The oppositional groups are in disarray, making it hard to find an adequate cooperation partner.

3. Commence Air Strikes
The Bush administration regularly emphasizes that all Iran options are on the table, including military operations. Proponents argue that diplomacy and sanctions have not had any impact on Iran, and aggressive behavior by Tehran hints that Iran’s nuclear program will be of a military rather than civilian character. In order to at least slow down this weapon program, air attacks on nuclear and ballistic sites in Iran might become a necessity, says Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute.

Iran’s nuclear and ballistic sites are too far-flung and well-hidden to be completely destroyed. Furthermore, any belligerent move, whether invasion or air strike, would play into the hands of the hawks in Ahmadinejad’s administration, who are already convinced that a peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue with the US is not possible. A military attack would support their conviction that nuclear assets are needed to defend Iran. Even if Tehran did not meet the air strikes with all-out war, the possibility of retaliatory terrorist action in Iraq, Israel or the US and Europe cannot be underestimated.

4. Negotiate a Grand Bargain with Tehran
The idea of the “grand bargain” is being discussed because of Iran’s offer in May 2003 of talks with the Bush administration on a wide range of issues, including the nuclear program, the issue of terrorism, and the Arab-Israeli peace process. This offer was not taken seriously then, but today analysts are focusing on the possibility of solving the nuclear issue through comprehensive talks on all topics of disagreement between the US and Iran.

Renouncing the threat of force would be the first step on the way to an open dialogue, says Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. An American security guarantee toward Iran—whether or not it includes a regional security framework—could supplement this first step, obviating Iran’s argument that it needs nuclear capabilities in order to counter US or regional aggressions. It would also open up opportunities for Iranian pragmatists who are willing to overcome US-Iranian disagreement in order to better Iran’s regional and global standing.

The grand bargain idea further holds that Iran cannot be forced to completely give up its nuclear program. Tehran has maintained that the Non-Proliferation Treaty permits the development of peaceful, civilian nuclear capabilities. Proponents of the grand bargain argue that Iran should be allowed to continue enrichment once adequate confidence-building measures and certain restrictions and verification measures are in place. With the negotiations moving on very slowly only, now could be the time for a confidential probe of the extent to which Iran will accept restrictions in exchange for continued uranium enrichment.

The big question behind the grand bargain approach is whether there is enough time left for these long-term negotiations and confidence-building measures. Even if such diplomacy were possible, the hawks on both sides would first need to be persuaded to engage in such comprehensive dialogue.

Which of these options do you favor? You can see how users voted on this here . We would also appreciate your thoughts, comments and any additional policy recommendations you might have on this topic.

Annette Pölking holds an MA in Political Science with focus on US foreign policy from the University of Freiburg, Germany. In addition to her work for the Atlantic Initiative, she is currently preparing for her PhD thesis on transatlantic policies towards Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Related Materials from the Atlantic Community: