Iran abandoned an agreement negotiated in October seeing them send nuclear material for enrichment in Russia and in France just as fast as it adopted it. While negotiations along the same lines may be revived, the recent pickup in internal unrest has put those on hold.
Israel had put a deadline of December '09 for negotiations with Iran while they have given assurances behind closed doors that they are not yet committed to a military strike. The renewed and intensification of negotiations - with a tilt towards stronger sanctions is likely to resume soon with pressure coming from the US as they have announced at the end of December. In doing so, it will be important to understand the positions of possible detractors in the process such as China and Russia. Turkey is another one of those and considering their interests in the affair will have to take precedence over unilateral action vis-à-vis Iran.
Here's a focus on Turkey as it sees its neighbor, Iran.
Turkey, like China, have large commercial interests in Iran and are not ready to jeopardize that. On top of that, Turkey shares a long border with Tehran which happens to be kurdish territory. Turkey launched a series of raids inside Iraq a few years ago to attack kurdish villages and they consider the PKK a terrorist organization. Erdogan mentioned that Turkey has a treaty with Iran regulating their relationship going back to 1636! They will thus support a strong Iranian government no matter who's in power. Erdogan has called Ahmenidejad (sp?) his "friend" in the past; he clearly doesn't want to estrange his neighbour.
Turkey also feels like it's been treated unfairly over the past 50 years in its petition to integrate the EU. Today, it seems to have grown out of that phase. It is enjoying economic prosperity despite of it and is now looking around the world for partners and allies in a more even fashion. Luckily for Turkey, the world is now becoming more multi polar and they can more easily choose who to dance with. Look for it to regain a more influential role in the Middle East in the years and decades to come. Thus, above all, Turkey wants to remain independent. They are likely to continue to refuse moving closer to the US or other NATO countries on Iran nuclear issue or other similar agendas just like they did in 2003 when they were asked to play a greater role in the Iraq invasion. They are not about to align the faith of their country with what they see as american or israeli interests as they witness the turmoil it has created in a country that has gone down that route, Pakistan.
So while China and Russia have shown some leniency to the US on the Iran issue if we go by the latest Security Council resolution, Turkey might be a tougher sell. Turkey wants more diplomatic efforts to be done which they believe haven't been exhausted yet.
What is the relevance of Turkey? It is a secular country by constitution, it is the only working democracy in the muslim world, it is very prosperous especially by middle eastern standards, it is a NATO country and aspires to become an EU member. This is a natural ally for the US in the region, one that isn't tainted by oil resources, or hasn't been forced through conflict to become an ally. While the main issue for the US must be ultimately to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, attitudes of countries such as Turkey must be considered. This is something that the Obama administration does infinitely better than the last one. They must continue to do so, and cherish and nurture deep and wide diplomatic ties with as many countries as they can.
So what's going to happen with the nuclear issue in Iran in the first few months of 2010?
El Baradei, the now retiring IAEA head, has said for his departing words that we were "at the end of the road" with Iran. But short of an Israeli or American aerial strike in 2010, I think the new direction will be tougher sanctions - if that. Some sanctions that are being discussed could be crippling from the Iranian economy and many people will want to try that first. This is what the international community will settle for unless conditions change drasticially. While Israel is the only country facing a survival issue in this whole affair, they would be foolish to act militarily on their own. This is especially true considering the enduring political turmoil within Iran as I write this which is one of the major condition that could change very rapidly in the months to come. A revolution within Iran could render the nuclear issue moot, so why spend more political capital now if the indications are Iran is still a good way away from a bomb?
The last thing I'd like to add is about Iran's intentions for nuclear energy.
When you are faced with an enemy, the natural, instinctual thing to do is to assume that that enemy is in the business of deploying all of its energy solely to do you harm, particularly in the most evil, vicious way. The problem is that those assumptions are not only always different from the truth, but they enhance themselves in a vicious circle because your enemy will entertain the same rationale (Indeed, the tragic all-out-war, downward maelstrom of militaristic schedules and attack contingencies that was WW1 was in fact a direct consequence of this rationale considering the rather limited, regional original event that started it). The fact is the "death to america" rhetoric that we often hear coming from Iranian Friday preachers or officials is mostly targeted at domestic audiences, and is fringe in nature. At best - or at worst? they are the Glenn Becks of Iran. Neither the iranian military nor the clerical council (whichever you believe to be the real authority within Iran at the moment) would have on top of its to-do list on day one of acquiring a functional bomb to drop it on Israel.
Iran and other similar countries who want, or wanted the bomb in the past, do so for two reasons. First, the bomb is seen as a symbol of power and prestige. It would transform its relationships with neighbors, add more weight to their negotiating capabilities internationally, and enhance the national sentiment at home. Second, and this one is less obvious, Iran and many other countries, still feel the weight of the post colonial historical legacy. They have the need - no the urge, to break away from it. They feel that the anti-nuclear pressure exerted against them is patronising. Ask any people on the street of those countries why they want the bomb and chances are they will tell you: "You have it, why not us?"
No comments:
Post a Comment