By Arash Aramesh, Guest Contributor
After four years of nuclear diplomacy, the Iranian government has so far missed deadlines to respond while stalling the talks yet again. However, whether there is or isn’t a nuclear deal, the international community must prepare to face the eventuality of a nuclear Iran.
The Islamic Republic has not to date been and never will be one hundred percent honest with the West about its nuclear program. Tehran has failed to voluntarily disclose information about the existence of some of its facilities, such as the nuclear plant near Qom, southwest of the capital, or about the extent of enrichment activities, as in the case of the Arak reactor. The number and whereabouts of Iran’s nuclear facilities are unknown and it seems that Iran’s nuclear program is not limited to only those sites which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is aware of. Dealing with such a secretive government can prove to be extremely difficult given that the line between Iran’s lies and truths is often blurred.
The West has few options when it comes to dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue. President Obama is going to be very reluctant to strike Iran militarily and start a third conflict in a turbulent region. Comments made by Jim Jones, national security advisor to President Obama, that “all options are on the table” are simply for effect; the administration knows full well that the military option would prove disastrous for the West. The government of Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu might consider surgical air raids, but Israel too, is conscious of the potential risks of failure: retaliation by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) or igniting a regional fire, one with which the U.S. would be very uncomfortable with. Another option involves imposing harsh economic sanctions on Iran. The Iranian middle and lower classes would pay the price of sanctions, while the ruling elites would grow wealthier and more powerful as mafia-like gatekeepers to the black market. A glance at history shows that rulers seldom feel the pain of sanctions, as was the case in Iraq and still is in North Korea and Cuba.
Realistically, the world must begin working on worst-case scenario in which Iran is a nuclear power. The Islamic Republic will not back down in its pursuit of nuclear technology, civilian or military, even if the West decides to bomb or boycott the country. The nuclear program, and the goal of becoming a nuclear-armed state, is of both foreign and domestic importance to the Islamic Republic. They seek global recognition as a member of the nuclear club, which they believe will increase their bargaining power in the region and boost their much-needed international prestige. Having the bomb would also buy insurance against any possible military threats against Iran. This would guarantee their survival as far as foreign threats are concerned.
Domestically, nuclear ambitions have been brandished by Iranian president Ahmadinejad to rally the masses around the flag and attack previous administrations for being too soft in nuclear negotiations. Ahmadinejad and his allies have accused former president Mohammad Khatami and his foreign policy team of ‘weakness’ when dealing with the West, especially after the attacks of September 11. According to Iran’s hardliners, the Khatami administration bowed down to the West and agreed to inspections and temporary halts in uranium enrichment.
Today, the government of Ahmadinejad, who has promised not to back down on the nuclear case, is facing criticism from both conservative and reformist factions in the country. Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Majlis, the Iranian parliament, has expressed his opposition to any deal signed by the government that would send Iran’s uranium stockpile overseas and in return receive fuel for its facilities. Larijani’s powerful deputy, Mohammad-Reza Bahonar, and other influential conservative Iranian parliamentarians have also opposed the Vienna agreement. The recently appointed Chief Justice of Iran, Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani, came out to criticize the deal, a move unprecedented for Iran’s highest judicial official. The opposition of the Larijani brothers, and other senior conservatives with close ties to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, shows Iran’s unwillingness to hand over its valuable uranium stockpile.
Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi, Iran’s opposition leaders, have also criticized the way in which the nuclear negotiations were conducted. They too do not believe Iran should ship its uranium to foreign countries. Reformist and conservative alike are in agreement that it is within Iran’s right as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to enrich uranium and that Iran’s envoy to the talks in Vienna should not accept any deals requiring Iran to be dependent on foreign sources for enrichment of uranium and nuclear fuel. Different political factions in Iran, however, disagree on the costs to be paid over the nuclear issue and the methods with which this crisis should be handled. The moderate government of Reformist ex-president Mohammad Khatami had a less combative attitude about Iran’s nuclear dossier than the administration of Ahmadinejad. It is clear, however, that the majority of Iranians and the spectrum of political factions inside Iran do not support abandoning Iran’s nuclear activities for the sake of appeasing the West. Political actors in Iran, including members of the opposition who took on the streets to protest the results of the June 12 presidential election last year, believe Iran has the right to have access to peaceful nuclear energy and the West, chiefly the U.S. and Israel, should not deprive Iran of this right.
In addition to support for the nuclear program at home, there are multiple reasons why Iran will not simply put aside its nuclear ambitions even if a comprehensive incentives package is offered by the West. The Islamic Republic resumed an old nuclear project that had been initiated by the Shah of Iran in the 1970s. The Shah, a close ally of the U.S., took advantage of German, French, and American assistance to build some of its major nuclear sites. For instance, the unfinished Bushehr facility was a German project and Tehran’s research reactor was built by the U.S. The Shah was seeking more or less the same goals as the Islamic Republic: recognition as a nuclear power by the world and increased prestige and respect at home. The Shah was also after using nuclear energy as a means of producing electricity for Iranian cities, thus reducing Iran’s dependency on its valuable oil reserves.
This forty-year love affair with nuclear technology has seen temporary pauses. After the 1979 revolution, radical revolutionaries abandoned Iran’s nuclear program. The program was again resumed in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. The Islamic Republic has felt vulnerable to foreign threats and these threats have never been bolder and more real than today. In their minds, nothing can keep Iran’s foreign enemies farther away than nuclear weapons.
With the U.S. engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran, which is situated between two American-led wars and thousands of U.S. troops, finds itself simultaneously threatened and empowered. The presence of large numbers of American infantry on Iran’s western and eastern borders coupled with the strong show of force by the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf and multiple bases in places such as Qatar and Kuwait make Iran’s leaders very uncomfortable.
Iran has learned an important lesson from the fates of the two other members of the “Axis of Evil.” Lacking a formidable military and access to nuclear weapons, Iraq’s dictatorship was overthrown by the U.S. military in the spring of 2003. On the other hand, the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il has remained in power and has conducted more nuclear and ballistic missile tests knowing that the world can only tighten the grip of sanctions, but will never dare a military operation against his country or his dictatorship. The Iranian government does not intend to be another Iraq, left vulnerable to the threat of foreign invasion.
The Iranian government’s official stance has always emphasized the civilian nature of its nuclear program. In 2005, the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa (a religious decree), banning the production and use of nuclear weapons for all Muslims. The West, however, does not buy Iran’s rhetoric. The Iranian state is rapidly pursuing nuclear technology and atomic weapons regardless of fatwas issued by its most topmost governmental cleric. The clock is ticking and leaders in the West must begin drawing “what if” plans to deal with a nuclear Iran in the near future.
The West’s best bet to safeguard itself from the threats of a nuclear Iran is to push for democratic reforms in the country. An Iran that does not support terrorism, violate the rights of its own citizens, and cheat in elections will be a much better partner for the West. What the world needs is an Iran that would act as a stabilizer and a reasonable partner in peace, not an ideologically-driven Islamist state armed with nukes. Unfortunately, the U.S. has not shown enough support for Iran’s democratic movement and the millions of Iranians who took to the streets to reclaim their ‘stolen’ votes in last summer’s presidential election.
The Obama administration seems more interested in engaging Iranian officials for a quick deal on the nuclear program than supporting real democratic change in Iran with long-lasting results. A democratic Iran that respects human rights, does not torture or sexually abuse prisoners, and holds fair and free elections will also be a responsible partner in the world nuclear club. What the U.S. and its allies must do as the first step in supporting Iranian democrats is to put pressure on the Iranian government to respect human rights, release its thousands of political prisoners, and bring to justice those responsible for the postelection violence.
Last November 4, the Iranian people took on the streets to send a message to the U.S. This time, on the 30th anniversary of the Iran hostage crisis, the green crowds did not chant death to America. Instead, the slogan of the day was a clear message to the American president whose Nobel has designated him a champion of peace and freedom: “Obama, Obama, Ya Ba Una, Ya Ba Ma!” meaning, “Obama, you are either with them [the Iranian government] or with us [the Iranian people].”
Arash Aramesh is the Iran Researcher for insideIRAN.org, a project of The Century Foundation.
