Financial Times Editorial - Time to confront Iran with a realistic deal

Financial Times Editorial - Time to confront Iran with a realistic deal
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Published: September 2 2006 03:00 | Last updated: September 2 2006 03:00


The fateful deadline set by the United Nations Security Council for Iran to cease its nuclear enrichment activity has come and gone. Tehran, as expected, has refused to comply and insisted it is within its legal rights under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. There are no good options from now on, but there are some potentially terrible ones.

It is therefore important to subject all policy options to a simple test: what stands a chance of persuading Iran to set aside its presumed nuclear ambitions? Can this standoff be resolved short of armed conflict, which would set fire to a Middle East already in turmoil and unleash Iranian retaliation within and beyond the region?

First of all, it should be clear that confrontation is playing into the hands of the Iranian regime. The ruling mullahs are widely despised by their people, but Iranians across the spectrum support their country's right to both technology and deterrence. The nuclear controversy has thus allowed the coalition of theocrats and vested interests built up by the 1979 Islamist revolution to rally the nation and close all remaining space to the reform movement.

Iran, moreover, is in dangerously confident mood. The US is bogged down in Iraq, an enterprise that has greatly expanded Iranian influence among the Iraqi Shia majority. Hizbollah's performance against Israel during the recent war in Lebanon has enhanced the prestige of its Iranian patron throughout the region. Iran's oil revenues are high and demand for its energy riches has never been higher.

The Bush administration, meanwhile, is growing impatient with the brittle consensus in the Security Council, where China and Russia are hesitant about sanctions, and the Europeans are reluctant to end the dialogue they have conducted with Iran over the past two years.

The debate in the US has been shaped by the rhetoric of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the mercurial and messianic president who has been prodigal in Holocaust denial and bloodcurdling threats. Yet the US spurned the overtures of his reformist predecessor, Mohammad Khatami - whose current tour of the US the administration is snubbing - and, in any case, the president plays second fiddle in Iran to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader and his parallel power structure.

True, in June Washington offered direct talks, but with the killer precondition that Iran immediately cease enrichment. So what should happen now? The best bet is still a calibrated and united response that holds out to Iran a realistic package of rewards as well as penalties. Some sanctions are now inevitable but they should be targeted, for example, to prevent any imports usable for nuclear purposes. Iran must be left in no doubt that any negotiations will always demand a full account of its nearly two decades of clandestine nuclear activities.

But, to have any hope of success, negotiations must address the main concerns of both sides.

Iran essentially wants security guarantees and recognition as a legitimate regional power. These are two things that, ultimately, only the US can provide. In exchange, Tehran must be prepared to offer full and verifiable nuclear transparency, to demonstrate it has ceased meddling in the affairs of its neighbours, and to work with those neighbours towards building stability in the Middle East. It remains the case that, as this paper has argued, the best way to confront Iran is with a deal.