Russia once again demonstrated that in the dispute about Iranian nuclear program it is quite firmly in the Western camp, all the talk about its opposition to sanctions notwithstanding. Today an anonymous source in the Russian government said that Russia may pull out of the Bushehr reactor project if sanctions are imposed or IAEA inspectors expelled. Even though the Foreign Ministry immediately denied that any such plans exist, the signal has probably been sent - Russia is not ready to stand up to the pressure from the West.
Ironically, pulling out of the Bushehr would be exactly the wrong thing to do in this situation. If anyone hopes to make nuclear fuel supply guarantees work, Bushehr is the place to start. Unless the "client states" (using GNEP terminology) know that they will get fuel for their reactors no matter what, even if they are in a midst of a controversy about their alleged (and maybe even real) nuclear weapon ambitions, no elaborate and complicated schemes would ever work.
The fuel for Bushehr has been sitting in Novosibirsk since at least April 2005, its delivery delayed several times. Shipping it today and making sure that the reactor is completed without any new delays is the only way to make the fuel supply guarantee credible. Completing Bushehr would not help or hinder the existing Iranian enrichment efforts, but it would go a long way to prevent other states from rationalising their enrichment programs in the future.
The book
Comments
Definitely not the right thing to do. It's time for sanctions, so withholding the fuel should be a higly visible part of those sanctions.
That's exactly the point - withholding the fuel should not be part of the sanctions. I understand that sanctions are supposed to be painful, but as I said - applying them to Bushehr would effectively end any serious talk about future fuel supply guarantees (in Iran or elsewhere). Besides, offering to continue fuel supplies in this situation (and carrying on the promise) would significantly strengthen the West negotiating position. The question is, do we want to punish Iran or to end its uranium enrichment program and discourage any future enrichment programs? I would vote for the latter.
I understand your point, but Iran is no longer in the middle of a "controversy". It is a country which will most likely be subject to UN Security Council sanctions within a short space of time. A country which is subject to UN sanctions, regardless of the reasons as to why these sanctions were instituted, should not receive nuclear fuel as a matter of principle.
Iran has not been discouraged by negotiations, so it must be discouraged by sanctions, and, if necessary, large-scale use of force.
Well, even if you believe that sanctions or "large-scale use of force" would be warranted, I would argue that Iran's having a working nuclear power plant would not really make them any less effective. As for the principles, as I understand it's up to the Security Council to determine the scope of the sanctions.
I don't believe that anyone can make the case that the use of coercive measures towards Iran is not warranted, unless they are prepared to countenance the possibility of it deploying nuclear weapons.
Iran's reactor would not necessarily make coercive measures less effective, but it would be a psychological boost to Iran. This is to be avoided, since Iran's population must be shown that ignoring the international community has grave consequences in the very field where their government has claimed much progress.
You are quite right that the final decision rests with the UN. Nevertheless, if the sanctions are not severe, the UN will effectively be discarding the principle of establishing "a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries" and thus its position as an arbiter.
Iran is still pretty far from having nuclear weapons and it is still possible to stop it from getting there. If completing Bushehr reactor would help stop it from getting enrichment capability, I don't see any reason not to do it. Unless, of course, the main concern is that Iran may get a "psychological boost". What's the priority here?
When someone talk about “international community”, he should be honest and said “American interests and perceptions”. Be clear to talk. Hypocrisies are in general no-conductive.
It is not clear how close Iran is to having nuclear weapons, so the worst case must be assumed. Neither the IAEA nor any other organisation can claim to have anything except a partial picture of Iran's nuclear programme. Therefore, rapid action is necessary.
Completing Bushehr would be extremely important, if there was cause to believe that this would make it stop enrichment. Since there is no reason to believe this, psychological arguments assume importance. Psychologically, weak sanctions will allow the Iranian government to tell its people that the world is toothless and consolidate power in the country, which is the reason why the nuclear programme is there in the first place.
There is no hypocrisy in this, the UN has unambiguously demanded that Iran cease enrichment. If UN members are unwilling to coerce Iran in order to enforce this, then they are hypocrites and the "international community" is a hollow phrase.
I'm not sure that "the worst case must be assumed". This is a dangerous strategy that did a lot of damage in the past (and I'm not talking about Iran only).
Not assuming the worst case scenario is true enables the UN to procrastinate and leaves open the possibility that Iran will deploy nuclear weapons earlier than the world expects it to. This does not leave those members of the UN that are threatened by Iran any choice except unilateral measures.
This is a deplorable state of affairs, but the UN is failing to provide security to its members.
The IAEA & International community are just another name for a few countries like US & UK. It is not as if they do not have the teeth to bite. On the other hand all they want is that everyone else in the world must follow them whether there is truth in what they say or not. Iran is far far off from making anything called a nuclear bomb let alone delivering it. The real purpose of the "International community" is to prevent Russia and European contries like France from gaining anything economically from business with Iran and other middle eastern countries. This is what is needed to be understood. If this is achived peacefully, why go to war? The same reason applies to Iraq too. A disinformation campaign was let loose that Russia moved WMD from Iraq! The U.S. Admin. knows only too well that there never was WMD there.