Paper on Al-Baradi’I Report, Chances of Third Resolution on Iran’s Nuclear Case

Text of commentary by Ali Khorram, former Iran ambassador to China and professor of university, on “Unedited” column headlined “The Security Council and a third resolution” published by Iranian newspaper E’temad-e Melli on 29 November

By the arrangements made by US during last summer, the conditions for a third Security Council resolution against Iran were being prepared. However, with the wise anticipations of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the collaborations of Mr Al-Baradi’i, the secretary-general of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], a modality of collaboration between Iran and the IAEA was worked out which was welcomed by China and Russia in the United Nation’s Security Council.

It is obvious that America was surprised by the new agreement between Iran and the Security Council and 5+1 group’s works on the third resolution were stopped. However, America accepted this defeat only to plan for the next round of meetings of the 5+1 countries. When the United Nation’s Security Council held a meeting in September this year, to decide about a third resolution against Iran, the US, with the help of its allies, did a clever thing that did not draw any attention. In the statement of the Security Council, unlike its normal and legal policy, instead of acknowledging the IAEA as the sole source for judgement and deciding against the Islamic Republic of Iran, they mentioned that two reports would be considered as the sources for judgement: Mr Al- Baradi’i's report and Mr Solana’s report, which would be published by the end of November.

From a legal point of view, as Iran’s file had been sent to the Security Council by the IAEA, the only reference for the council should be the result of collaboration between Iran and the IAEA. On the other hand, from a technical point of view, no other source could comment on Iran’s nuclear case other than the IAEA. In other words, the Security Council cannot ignore the IAEA views and rely on someone else’s, such as Mr Solana’s, views. In principle, the views of Mr Solana, regarding the compliance of the Islamic republic’s actions to the Security Council’s resolutions 1737 and 1747, could well be included in Mr Al-Baradi’i's report, which was indeed included. Therefore, it is only a manifestation of the opportunistic policy of the US to place Mr Solana’s report alongside Mr Al- Barade’i's report. The reason for such an initiative by America was that it anticipated that Mr Al-Baradi’i's report might contain positive points in the interest of the Islamic Republic and therefore there should be another report to resort to, in order to go ahead with a new resolution against Iran.

What is Mr Solana after? He, as a representative of the 5+1 group countries, should basically be after suspending Iran’s nuclear activities, which is on the other hand what is most welcomed by America and Israel. Therefore, he will look, in his negotiations with the secretary of Iran’s National Security Council, to see to what extent is Iran ready to suspend its uranium enrichment. America calls this search a diplomatic and political approach towards Iran’s permanent suspension of nuclear activities.

Mr Solana has tried this path many times before and knows well that a permanent suspension by the Islamic Republic of Iran is not possible. Because of this, he thinks maybe he can reach this end by other means. Europe did not and do not insist on a permanent suspension of Iran’s nuclear activities, but it emphasises on this point only to show its support for the US. Europe knows that this request is neither reasonable nor feasible. America speaks of Iran being armed with nuclear weapons and atomic warhead and the possibility of Iran attacking Israel in order to frighten the Europeans. Therefore, the Europeans might think that they cannot agree with a nuclear Iran with such an aggressive and unpredictable foreign policy. They think they should stop Iran from the very beginning from acquiring the nuclear technology at any price. Mr Solana said last year that the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot be stopped with a logical language or international laws or even the Security Council’s resolutions but should be convinced to suspend its uranium enrichment. Mr Solana has two more cards to play with, which he hopes one of them would return Iran to the negotiations. One of them is the European package, presented to Iran several times during the last four years; this package was rejected each time by Iran and the European nations have tried to upgrade it each time, but still do not attract Iran. Mr Solana has tried the European package several times during his recent talks with the secretary of Iran’s National Security Council but has not received a positive feedback from Iran.

The second is the plan of enrichment on Russian soil which, just like the European package, is a solution approved by America and Europe for resolving the nuclear issue. The proposal for creating an enrichment consortium in Russia, which has been proposed by our president in his speech in the United Nations General Assembly and which has been brought up several times during the last two years, has always been supported by the Russians and the 5+1 countries and is considered as an alternative solution. The Islamic Republic of Iran has not accepted this plan.

Therefore, the report of Mr Solana would first contain the collaboration of Iran on the issue of suspension of uranium enrichment, which was requested by nine resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors and three UN Security Council’s resolutions; then it will contain the European package proposal and at last the consortium for the enrichment in Russian soil.

With such a report it is obvious that basically there would be no attracting point for the Islamic Republic of Iran and could be regarded as a negative report from Iran’s standpoint. This is exactly why America has put Mr Solana’s besides Mr Al-Baradi’i's report. The US used another trick as well to facilitate the issuance of a third resolution against Iran. Two weeks ago, Ms Merkel, the German Chancellor and Mr Sarkozy, the French president met President Bush. Sarkozy, even before going to Washington, expressed his hostile views on Iran and tried to speak about military solutions if diplomatic solutions did not work; a position which president Bush corrected by insisting on peaceful and political ways. However, Ms Merkel talked about Mr Al-Baradi’i's report before going to Washington and said any decision depends on his report; after the trip to Washington, she did not mention Al-Baradi’i any more but insisted upon further sanctions and a new resolution against Iran and intolerance regarding a nuclear Iran. Therefore, besides Britain, which was a traditional ally of the US, two more European countries joined the US in its further decisions.

In the process of the resolution concerning Iraq in 1381 [2002- 2003] only Britain stood by America and besides Russia and China, the countries such as France and Germany were against the US; France even threatened to veto the decision by the Security Council. Therefore, the US proceeded with its notorious action against Iraq independently without passing through the UN Security Council. This time America, learning from Iraq’s lessons, is trying to build coalitions with France and Germany, which lead not only to a new resolution, but to other goals followed by the US as well.

Iran’s initiative in collaborating with the agency was fruitful. Mr Al-Baradi’i's, disregarding its summary, was a positive report in the interest of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This report contains the precedence of Iran’s nuclear technology and records of Iran’s first purchase of centrifuges and the agency has now no ambiguity in this respect.

In addition, the issue of P1 and P2 generation of centrifuges, which were disputed during years are now considered to be closed according to Mr Al-Baradi’i. Pollution and other unresolved issues were also mentioned in the IAEA report as being compliant with what Iran had done.

However, Mr Al-Baradi’i, either because of the pressures from America and the three European countries or just to create a balanced report, gave a summary of the report that was negative and pointed out to undeclared issues that have to be clarified by Iran. Unlike the main report, which stresses the fact that Iran has no deviation towards military activities, in the summary, it is said that the agency could not confirm Iran’s non-deviation to military goals unless it delivers the information about the undeclared matters. In other words, the report has enough positive and negative points to make the Islamic Republic of Iran and non-allied countries such as China and Russia happy and at the same time can furnish America with materials which it can use in the Security Council to issue a third resolution against Iran.

Maybe the Islamic Republic of Iran needed to campaign on the report’s positive points but it has insisted on the positive aspects of Mr Al-Baradi’i's report to a point where it cannot do much in face of negative speech by Mr Al-Baradi’i. The truth is that according to the positive side of Mr Al-Baradi’i's report, the presence of Iran’s nuclear file in the UN Security Council loses its legitimacy because in Esfand 1384 (March 2006) Iran did not have any deviation towards military use of nuclear power and was compliant with the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] protocol. The Board of Governors of the IAEA, under the pressure of the US and with the pretext of hiding information and delay in Iran’s response, referred Iran’s nuclear file to the Security Council. However, today, with the report of Mr Al Baradi’i, there is nothing more to hide. Secondly, the unresolved issues are totally dealt with; thirdly, the request of suspension is now out of question according to NPT and the bylaws of the IAEA because suspension was necessary once there was a deviation towards military uses of nuclear power or when Iran was not collaborating with the IAEA. It would be useful if the secretary of the National Security Council mentions these claims in his meeting with Mr Solana on Friday.

Originally published by E’temad-e Melli, Tehran, in Persian 29 Nov 07.

(c) 2007 BBC Monitoring Middle East. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.