Obama and Iran

IN a brilliant insight into human nature, Dicey, a great authority on the unwritten British constitution, wrote: “People sometimes ask the idle question why the Pope does not introduce this or that reform? The true answer is that a revolutionist is not the kind of man who becomes a Pope, and that the man who becomes a Pope has no wish to be a revolutionist.”

President Obama has wasted no time in indicating the limits within which he will alter the foreign policy he inherited; especially on Iran. “I would never take a military option off the table,” he once said. On Jan 26, he told Al Arabiya with an air of magnanimity that “if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fists, they will find an extended hand from us”. This is insolent.

It is the US which has treated Iran, besides some others, with a clenched fist. Will he ask Congress to repeal the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 and end the US’ covert action against Iran? The act imposes sanctions on any person who has made an investment of $40m or more, which the president determines, “directly and significantly contributed to the enhancement of Iran’s ability to develop petroleum resources of Iran”. Even the Europeans resent this.

On Feb 15, 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice unveiled an $85m programme to overthrow Iran’s government. Before leaving the White House President Bush declined Israel’s request for specialised bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex. But, David E Sanger of The New York Times reported, he “told the Israelis that he had authorised new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons”. In December 2007, a new assessment by 16 US spy agencies, the National Intelligence Estimate, concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear programme in 2003 that remained frozen. No one talks of Israel’s 200 nuclear warheads.

The administration’s foreign policy agenda says “it supports tough and direct diplomacy with Iran without preconditions”. It then listed the conditions. “Now is the time to use the power of American diplomacy to pressure Iran to stop their illicit nuclear programme, support for terrorism, and threats towards Israel. Obama and Biden will offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear programme and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organisation, economic investments and a move towards normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behaviour, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.” This is not an extended hand. It is a clenched fist. Dennis Ross and Gary Samore who will deal with Iran most probably are known hawks.

On May 4, 2003 Iran made an offer which, had it been accepted, would have altered the course of history. It offered to end its support to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and press them to cease attacks on Israel; support the disarmament of Hezbollah and transform it into a purely political party; open up the nuclear programme completely to intrusive international inspections in order to alleviate any fears of weaponisation; and sign the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which it eventually did).

It also offered extensive American involvement in the programme as a further guarantor and goodwill gesture and offered full cooperation against all terrorist organisations — above all, Al Qaeda. On Iraq, Iran would work actively with the US to support political stabilisation and the establishment of democratic institutions.

Iran further offered to accept the Beirut declaration of the Arab League, the Saudi peace plan from March 2002 in which the Arab states offered to make peace collectively with Israel, recognising and normalising relations with the Jewish state in return for Israel’s agreement to withdraw from all occupied territories and accept a fully independent Palestinian state, an equitable division of Jerusalem, and an equitable resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem. It would formally recognise the two-state solution and consider itself at peace with Israel. Iran wanted the members of the Mujahideen-i-Khalq Organisation (MKO), an Iranian terrorist organisation based in Iraq, handed over in return for Al Qaeda operatives it held.

The Swiss ambassador to Iran, Tim Guldimann, personally took the proposal to the US. He and his government were rebuked by the US for their pains. On the nuclear issue Iran made a comprehensive offer to the EU3 (UK, France and Germany) on March 23, 2005 after they had concluded in Paris an interim accord on Nov 15, 2004 to facilitate negotiations for a final settlement.

But the EU3, prodded by the US, no longer sought guarantees. It sought the end of Iran’s programme. Its proposal of Aug 8, 2005 asked Iran to abandon its plans for an independent nuclear fuel cycle and depend forever on western pledges of fuel supply. It was a breach of the Paris Accord.

Iran’s letter to the UN secretary-general on May 13, 2008 renewed previous offers. The P5 of the Security Council, plus Germany, gave a counter-offer on June 12, 2008.

President Obama must earnestly grasp the nettle. Peace in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq depends on Iran. Its nuclear programme is a symbol of national pride.

The DG of the IAEA, Mohammed El Baradei went to the heart of the matter. In an interview to an American publicist in mid-2005, he said that Iran was seeking a grand bargain in exchange for concessions on the nuclear issue. “The prize they seek, above all, is better relations with the US.” Obama should unclench America’s fist.

By A.G. Noorani
The writer is a lawyer and an author.