BETWEEN THE AMERICAN "STICK" AND THE EUROPEAN "CARROT"

The last day of May and the first day of June were marked by negotiations between the European Union and Iran. Brussels was represented by the EU single foreign policy negotiator, Javier Solana, while the interests of the Islamic Republic in the dialogue were safeguarded by the secretary of Iran's Security Council, Ali Larijani. Was it possible to anticipate any positive results from the talks on Iran's nuclear agenda? To be honest, there was little optimism, especially since the Spanish El Pais quoted Mr. Solana expressing some doubt over the success of the talks in the run-up to the meeting, despite the good relationship between the two diplomats. Such a downbeat assessment followed a statement by Ali Larijani that Iran had no intention of abandoning its nuclear policy or reversing uranium enrichment activities. At the same time, the secretary of the Iranian Security Council indicated that his country was not developing weapons of mass destruction and was ready to provide guarantees that its nuclear programme was peaceful. "We are ready to provide solid guarantees that we will not take steps towards weapons acquisition," Larijani said.

Wasted opportunity 

It is worth indicating that senior representatives of the EU and Iran met twice over little more than one month. The previous round of talks between Javier Solana and Ali Larijani was held in Ankara in late April. The period between the two meetings was marked by an event which ratcheted up the crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear programme: the 60-day deadline provided for Iran to reverse its uranium enrichment activities under UN SC Resolution No 1747 from 24 March had expired. In its report, the International Atomic Energy Agency stated that did Iran had not only ignored the Security Council's demand but had even expanded the scope of its operations.

The above-mentioned document envisages the possibility of introducing new and tougher economic and political sanctions to put more pressure on Iran. However, the group of six superpowers (five UN SC members plus Germany) involved in the settlement process decided to give Iran another chance to reach a solution by sending the experienced Javier Solana to the Spanish capital for talks with Ali Larijani. In the run-up to the talks, Solana made it clear that Tehran would be made an offer it would not be able to reject. "The European Union is ready to assist Iran with the technology of peaceful nuclear energy as with no other country," Solana told Japanese newspaper Nikkei. He added that in return the group of six superpowers was simply expecting Iran to confirm that its nuclear programme did not pursue military ends. 

The USA immediately issued its reaction to the statement. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "We would like to listen to Mr. Solana's account of the negotiations, after which we would decide whether to carry on tightening the existing sanctions or to develop new methods". Rice defined Washington's stance on a plane from Washington to Potsdam to attend a meeting of G8 foreign ministers.

The US secretary of state also made a number of important revelations. She said in particular that she did not rule out the possibility that Washington may introduce sanctions against Iran "outside the UN SC framework", and called on her colleagues not to ease pressure on Tehran. She added that Iran's nuclear dossier should be dealt with by the UN SC, not the IAEA. With this remark, Secretary of State Rice indicated the negative reaction of the USA to a recent New York Times interview with IAEA head Mohammad al-Baradei, who made it possible for Iran to embark on a limited scale of uranium enrichment activities. 

However, the US call for "more pressure" on Tehran was not accepted in Moscow. According to Russian newspaper Kommersant, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, during the Potsdam meeting of foreign ministers, tried to persuade his partners to recognize Iran's entitlement to limited research and to allow it to try uranium enrichment equipment on the scale sanctioned by the IAEA. The Kremlin believes that it would be wrong to adopt a new package of UN SC sanctions hastily. The most important task is to try to convince Tehran by all possible ways of the need to continue negotiations. In this connection, Moscow considers that the document called 'The Way Forward to Negotiations', prepared by the G8 and forwarded to Mr. Larijani by Javier Solana, gives Tehran a good opportunity.

Iran, however, had no intention of taking this "opportunity". "We have exchanged a multitude of ideas. I don't think we can talk of dramatic changes, but we have achieved progress on some important issues," Solana told journalists. Among these are issues associated "with the energy agency", the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We hope to reach agreement," the European diplomat said, adding that he would meet with Larijani again in two weeks, in the middle of June.

Behind the curtain of negotiations 

Of course, before taking any step, politicians have to understand its potential implications. It is also clear that there is another side to the story.

What was Europe hoping to achieve by engaging in negotiations with recalcitrant Iran, knowing that the effort was most likely to remain futile? 

There are several possible answers. First, of course hope springs eternal. Javier Solana has an international reputation as a tough negotiator. The European envoy must have tried to convince Iran that the EU suggestion was in the best interests of Tehran proper, because it will reduce not only the likelihood of military action against Iran but also the chances of even tougher sanctions insisted upon by the Americans and some European superpowers. 

Second, for the EU it was an attempt to shake off the burden of responsibility to the European public for the possible consequences of Iran's stubborn stance. 

Third, the negotiations were guided somewhat by the desire to bring clarity to the positions of certain European countries (in fact, not only European) which are opposed to tightening the policy on Iran and believe that all political avenues for resolving "Iran's uranium crisis" have not been fully explored yet. We repeat that Javier Solana has always been in favour of a tough and pragmatic policy, for which he always enjoyed the trust of Washington, including the time when he was the NATO secretary general. It was he who was the main mediator in the talks between the Americans and European countries (and beyond) on resolving similar disputes. It is also worth noting that the EU-Iran talks took place exactly a week before the G8 summit in Heiligendamm where the Iranian issue was also on the agenda. This is also one of the reasons for Iran's sudden agreement to the meeting in an effort to avert any harsh decision-making at the G8 summit.

Fourth, the agreement to continue discussions between the EU and Iran illustrates the desire of the sides to bide their time in the adoption of new sanctions against Tehran. Under the present circumstances, and upon the expiration of the 60-day ultimatum, such sanctions are quite likely.

Summing up these arguments, we can draw two main conclusions: Europe is trying to do everything in its power to clear its conscience and come to a common understanding on Iran; and to quietly … "wash its hands" in the event the USA decides to strike out at the Islamic Republic. This likelihood is quite high and it keeps rising, but we will talk about this a little later…

How Putin surrendered Iran 

The biggest news of the Heiligendamm summit was the suggestion by Russian President Vladimir Putin (made during his one-on-one meeting with US President George Bush) on joint use (with the Americans) of the Qabala Radar Station Daryal which Azerbaijan leased out to Russia in 2002 for 10 years. He indicated that he had already talked about this with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and had received his consent. Bush practically accepted the Kremlin's suggestion and the two presidents ordered their military experts, as well as foreign ministries, to start consultations on this issue. Here is a quote from Putin's statement to journalists after his talks with the US president: "The agreement we have with Azerbaijan allows this opportunity. I spoke to the Azerbaijani president yesterday and Mr. Aliyev said he would be glad… We will do this in an autonomous regime. The system will cover not just part of Europe (as does the potential radar in the Czech Republic - author) but the whole of Europe… This will completely rule out the possibility of missiles targeting European countries… To be more exact, this will help us to maintain our stance on missiles targeting Europe… This will eliminate the need for stationing our strike units near European borders … and in space… However, we hope these negotiations do not serve as a cover for unilateral action because, even if a country like Iran conducts a test of its nuclear weapons, our common means of surveillance will register it… It takes at least three to five years to put such missiles on combat alert duty. This time is sufficient for the stationing of missile defence systems… In other words, no matter how long our talks last, we will not be too late."

Therefore, the Russian president has agreed to the use, jointly with the Americans, of the facility in Azerbaijan which is of tremendous importance for Russia, including the use of the station against Iran! As a matter of fact, Russia has given its consent for the presence of US military units near its southern borders. If we were to recall the statement on the further stationing of missile defence systems to destroy launched missiles, it would become clear that Moscow has even agreed to the stationing of American or NATO military units in Azerbaijan and Georgia. This opinion is confirmed by another statement by Mr. Putin that "… this will help us rule out the possibility of parts of anti-ballistic missiles falling on European countries because they will all fall into the sea or ocean".

It is obvious that Iran cannot view this stance of the Russian president as being a "friendly step". It is quite possible that in order for the US to abandon the idea of creating a missile defence system near Russia's European borders, Moscow may soon agree to the adoption of tougher international sanctions against Iran as a goodwill gesture.

Braced for war! 

In the run-up to the G8 summit in Germany, on 6 June CNN broadcast live debates between US republican candidates for presidency. The discussion centred on Iran's nuclear agenda and Middle Eastern conflicts. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who is the republican frontrunner according to polls, said it was possible to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons by using conventional arms. At the same time, he did not rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iranian facilities. Giuliani stressed that Tehran has to "clearly understand that it is unacceptable to the United States for Iran to become a nuclear power". "They represent a nuclear threat, not only because they can install nuclear warheads on missiles. They represent a threat because they are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and can hand over nuclear materials to terrorists," Giuliani said.

Almost all the republican candidates for the US presidency somehow touch upon the possible military blow against Iran, aiming to stop the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic. However, even if the new president represents the Democrats, who lambasted the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, prospects for Iran are quite bleak as well. Although democratic candidates exercise more restraint over the problem and point to the mistakes make in Iraq, they unanimously and unreservedly support Israel. Senator Hillary Clinton who, polls say, is the democratic frontrunner, has said she does not rule out the possibility of strike against Iran as "a last recourse". At the same time, she believes that "strong relations with Israel must be the cornerstone of US Middle Eastern policy". Israel's relationship with Iran is obvious. It is also clear which country is the object of the Iranian regime's subversive policy, not to mention the military threat, namely missiles, that Iran poses to Israel…