The Iran Diplomacy Puzzle

Iran has expressed willingness to resume talks over its nuclear program, but blocked access to a military site suspected of hosting covert nuclear weapon research for visiting inspectors from the UN nuclear agency, the IAEA, this week. The two sides also failed to reach any agreement on unresolved issues related to Iran's nuclear program, the IAEA said. These gestures follow developments that have deepened the standoff between Tehran and the West: claims of nuclear advances; fresh threats of economic retaliation; and allegations by Israel that recent bombings in New Delhi, Tbilisi, and Bangkok were part of Iran's plot to target Israeli diplomats. Iran denies any involvement in the bombings.

What's at Stake

Concerns over Iran's nuclear program have peaked since a November 2011 IAEA report warned of its possible military dimensions and Iran made a decision to enrich uranium up to 20 percent levels, bringing it closer to weapons-grade uranium. Iran repeatedly claims its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes. The United States, the EU, and other countries such as Canada have ratcheted up economic sanctions to target Iran's oil sector, the regime's largest source of revenue. Washington hopes this will bring Iran back to the negotiation table.

A failure to reach a diplomatic solution carries huge costs: The United States has said a nuclear Iran is "unacceptable" and has left military options on the table; a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities by Israel remains a real threat; and tensions between Iran and the West continue to rise in what some have called a "shadow war" or an "economic war."

The Debate

Sanctions are hurting the Iranian economy, which is struggling with inflation and a downward spiraling rial. Some analysts say Iran's escalating rhetoric and the attacks attributed to it are desperate moves by a regime feeling squeezed by tightening economic sanctions.

A significant part of the Iranian public "blames government actions for incurring sanctions that hurt the economy," says Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. A new Gallup poll surveying 1,000 Iranians found nearly two-thirds of the responders believed recent sanctions will hurt their livelihoods. And this, some analysts say, is why Iran is ready to talk.

But some Western policymakers worry that Iran's latest move to negotiate may be an attempt to buy time as it forges ahead with its nuclear ambitions. Internal political divisions in Iran, in particular between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also make any talks tricky. It is unclear if Khamenei, who holds the final word, is ready to make a deal. Former U.S. diplomats William H. Luers and Thomas R. Pickering write that Khamenei "is convinced that the United States will not work with Iran until his regime is gone," and therefore, Washington must convey, both through messages and actions, that covert action against Iran has been halted to give diplomacy a chance.

Policy Options

Even as many analysts argue that "a negotiated solution remains the best way to resolve the nuclear crisis with Iran," what this would involve remains uncertain. Tehran would likely seek an easing of sanctions and a right to continue uranium enrichment. But views among the major powers in the P5+1 group -- permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany -- onnegotiating with Tehran are divided.

France says Iran can't maintain any enrichment capability, even though as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Tehran is allowed to enrich under IAEA safeguards. Russia favors a step-by-step approach in which sanctions would be eased in return for verifiable steps by Tehran to limit its nuclear program. U.S. and Russian officials have held meetings on the plan, but the latest U.S. position on it is unknown.

Background Materials

A group of scholars on international relations and security studies answer this question posed by CFR's Micah Zenko: How would nuclear weapons affect Iranian foreign policy?

How do Iranian internal politics work and what is the scope of the country's nuclear program? This interactive CFR Crisis Guide explores these and other questions and possible policy responses.

This article first appeared on CFR.org.

 

Follow Jayshree Bajoria on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jayshreebajoria

Comments

[stpmdn]

11:53 AM on 02/23/2012

Does the US allow IAEA to inspect every military site in the US? No way. Why should Iran. And if that is something US really wants then it needs to be negotiated. It can't be a precondition unless the US really doesn't want negotiation. It wants war. I don't think obama wants war with Iran but he'll be pushed into one by Israel Lobby

[The Mighty Cynic]

11:25 AM on 02/23/2012

Here's another thing:

What's stopping Iran from easily killing Israelis with, say, weaponized anthrax? Or hey, they still don't have fire hoses in Israel. Iran doesn't even have to develop its weapons, it's an oil rich country. It can buy nukes and all sorts of things it needs. What's stopping Russia or China from secretly transferring that technology? Also, Russia and China have placed Iran veritably under their nuclear umbrella. How would Israel stave off the retaliation?

[The Mighty Cynic]

11:18 AM on 02/23/2012

Here's a thought, does the CFR know anything about Iranian culture and what will happen to the entire member body of that organization in terms of security if Iran is unjustly attacked? Iranians are 200 million roughly worldwide in totum. They will ensure that every member of the CFR's family trees are unrooted for the plan to invade Iran, already well announced by the CFR.

We don't live in the misinformation age anymore, this is the age of populism supported by information within global reach - a greater connectivity. If you commit an Iranian genocide, which will inevitably happen with even one gun shot to start a shooting war, it won't be like committing an Iraqi massacre of over one million. They will come after you, generation after generation, until the last one. And they are highly intelligent and educated.

[Adam Bair]

11:13 AM on 02/23/2012

The elephant in to room with regard to Iran is that the NEED nuclear capability to be secure against the constant threat of American invasion. Look at the way America treats Pakistan: A Muslim nation that has been shown to (willingly or not) shelter terrorists that receives hundreds of million a year in "military aid" from America. The ONLY reason that we are so keen to work so closely with our ally Pakistan, is that Pakistan has nukes. To look at history over the last fifty years where America have invaded over 60 other countries, have nukes is the only way a medium sized country can protect their own National Security. Perhaps Iran wouldn't need to work towards nukes if they hadn't been invaded by the US twice in the last 50 years and looking at dozens of US airbases built on their borders after the countries on both side of them have been over thrown by the US in the last decade. Why SHOULDN"T Iran build nuclear weapons?

[muck-raker]

07:51 AM on 02/23/2012

Moscow Renews Opposition to Sanctions against Tehran

TEHRAN (FNA)- Russian officials reiterated the country's strong opposition to fresh sanctions against Iran, and urged a negotiated end to the differences between Iran and the West.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov voiced Moscow's strong opposition to unilateral imposition of sanctions on Iran by the United States.

Rybakov reiterated Kremlin's stance on such restrictions in a Wednesday meeting with the US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul.

The top Russian negotiator in the talks over Iran's nuclear program expressed concerns over Washington's persistence in slapping new sanctions against the Islamic Republic, given the complicated conditions surrounding the case.

Russia has opposed the US-spearheaded economic and political pressure against Tehran, saying it is impeding a negotiated solution to the West's standoff with Iran and the country's talks with the G5+1 (Britain, China, France, Russia and the US plus Germany).

Russian top diplomat Sergei Lavrov had also earlier this month reiterated his country's strong opposition to using military force against Iran, and urged a negotiated end to the differences between Iran and the West.

Lavrov said that his country will not accept use of military force against Iran.

[Richard Pearce banned]

06:08 AM on 02/23/2012

You might want to go back to Jpost, where such comments are run of the mill (because it is in line with the editorial policy, and the government policy).

Oh HuffPost, even when such idiotic hate gets through, you get ridiculed more than you get praised.

[cincinnati]

03:22 AM on 02/23/2012

Do not let the media and
bought or blackmailed politicians
push the US into yet another
senseless ME WAR......
PROTEST NOW !

The Israeli VP even tried to link Iran to
911 on CNN recently......the neocon's are
up to their dirty tricks.....explain the truth
to friends and neighbors [carefully], and
PROTEST !

[Richard Pearce banned]

06:12 AM on 02/23/2012

Love how we are told, again and again, that we must take seriously a very questionable interpretation of a statement by the 'Supreme' Leader (note how they act as if the honorific is part of the position name) and yet told to ignore the very clear and unambiguous statements by the same person which make it clear that they would consider even developing a nuclear bomb a defeat worse than being hit with Israel's entire nuclear arsenal.

[Richard Pearce banned]

01:50 AM on 02/23/2012

Nice trick to put the gallup poll showing that Iranians feel that the US attempts to crush Iran economically have escalated to the point where it will have a significant impact on the lives of ordinary Iranians right after the unsubstantiated claim that Iranians blame those attempts (which are sold to the world as being in response to the civilian nuclear program which is as popular with the general Iranian population as the space program was with the general American population when JFK shot for the moon) on their own government. It lends, by proxy a degree of legitimacy to that claim, when polling data from Iran shows there is no legitimacy to it (in fact, across the political spectrum, one fifth of Iranians oppose even bothering with the effort of trying to strike a deal with the US to get the sanctions lifted, while the vast majority, again fairly consistently across the political spectrum, are willing to talk, but not to accept any of the limitations or restrictions not in the NNPT that the US and France insist must be the minimum that Iran has to abide by)

[The Mighty Cynic]

11:23 AM on 02/23/2012

Richard hits the nail.

[John WV]

08:48 PM on 02/22/2012

Israel tolerate an IAEA inspection? No way. The Jewish state won't even talk to IAEA. Iran cooperates with IAEA, but is suffering from both debilitating sanctions and threat of imminent war. Of course it withheld confidential military information. So did Israel.

[Richard Pearce banned]

01:54 AM on 02/23/2012

You might be interested to know that in an opinion poll conducted of Israeli Jews, the majority of them were fully supportive of the deal that their government rejects out of hand, with US approval, that would see all fears of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program as squashed as the fears of a secret Brazilian nuclear weapons program have been, the MEWFZ treaty (which, of course, is rather similar to the WFZ treaty that quashed the fears about Brazil's nuclear program)

http://worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/695.php?lb=brme&pnt=695&nid=&id=