Middle East: Iran
Special Report:
Iran says it is interested in negotiations on its nuclear development program; IAEA inspectors travel to Iran
***
Background: Nuclear development, assassination, and brinkmanship at Strait of Hormuz
At the close of 2011, according to reports via the state-run media, Iran successfully test-fired a medium-range surface-to-air missile during military exercises in the Persian Gulf. Iranian naval commander Mahmoud Mousavi lauded the operation, noting the missile was equipped with the "latest technology" and "intelligent systems." Mousavi also noted that further missile launches would be carried out in the near future as part of Iran's naval exercises in international waters close to the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
On Jan. 2, 2011 -- one day after testing a medium-range missile -- Iran reportedly test-fired long-range missiles in the Persian Gulf. Making good on his previously-made vow that Iran would continue this path, Mousavi said on behalf of the Iranian government, "We have test fired a long-range shore-to-sea missile called Qader, which managed to successfully destroy predetermined targets in the gulf."
This news by Mousavi was followed by a disclosure by the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization that its scientists "tested the first nuclear fuel rod produced from uranium ore deposits inside the country." As well, the IAEA was soon noting that uranium enrichment had begun at the Fordow underground site near Qom. Indeed, the uranium at the Fordow site was reportedly being enriched to 20 percent -- a distinctly higher level than the 3.5 percent needed for nuclear plants. These disclosures served only to bolster Western fears that Iran has made important progress in its nuclear development, augmenting anxieties that Iran's ultimate ambition is to enrich uranium at the 90 percent level necessary to create a nuclear bomb.
It should be noted that these revelations from Iran came after several Western countries indicated their intent to impose further sanctions on Iran's oil and financial sectors, for the purpose of registering discontent over that country's continued nuclear ambitions. Indeed, the United States wasted no time in taking action and on Dec. 31, 2011, President Barack Obama signed legislation authorizing a package of sanctions on Iran's central bank and financial sector. These new sanctions by the United States aimed to intensify the pressure on Iran's oil sales, most of which are processed by the central bank. Essentially, they would force multinational companies to choose whether to do business with Iran or the United States. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Iranian currency -- the rial -- slipped in value to a record low as a result of the news.
For its part, Iran has warned that it might retaliate against international pressure by closing the Strait of Hormuz through which a significant amount of oil is transported. Indeed, Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi promised that "not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz" if further sanctions were imposed. That being said, analysts have noted that such a drastic step by Iran might serve primarily to hurt the Iranian economy, and imperil relations with Russia and China. Accordingly, the threat was being regarded with skepticism. Moreover, United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned that a closure of the strait would yield consequences. Specifically, Defense Secretary Panetta said the United States would "not tolerate" the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, and warned that was a "red line" for his country, to which there would be a response.
Iran was increasingly slipping into a state of isolation. China and Russia -- typically antagonists to the notion of increased pressure on that country -- seemed to be distancing themselves from Iran. China was reportedly seeking alternative sources of oil, while Russia was expressing "regret" over Tehran's decision to start work at the new Fordow uranium enrichment plant near Qom. Russia went further by saying that Iran should commence "serious negotiations … without preconditions" or face the reality of consequences.
Iran's controversial nuclear program continued to dominate the international landscape well into the second week of January 2012 when an apparent nuclear scientist working at Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant was killed in a car bomb attack. The magnetic bomb was reportedly attached to to the vehicle carrying the nuclear scientist by a motorcycle rider. According to the Sharif University in Tehran, Roshan, a chemistry expert, graduated from that institution and was working as the deputy in charge of commerce at the Natanz site. The actual attack ensued outside the campus of Allameh Tabatai University, where Roshan was a lecturer.
Iranian officials wasted no time in blaming Israel for the death of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, which they said was quite similar to the killings of other Iranian nuclear scientists. Tehran province Gov. Safar Ali Bratloo said in an interview with the media, "The responsibility of this explosion falls on the Zionist regime. The method of this terrorist action is similar to previous actions that targeted Iran's nuclear scientists." Joining the chorus, Iran's First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi accused Israeli agents of being the perpetrators of Roshan's assassination.
There was no immediate response from Israeli officials as to this allegation. That being said, the French newspaper, Le Figaro, has reported that the Israeli Mossad has been training Iranian dissidents in Iraqi Kurdistan to destabilize the Iranian regime. There was no actual evidence that Israeli-trained Iranians were behind the assassination of Roshan in Tehran; however, Israeli Mossad's hand has been suspected in a number of targeted killings of Iranian nuclear scientists, effectively fueling speculation about a covert effort to undermine Iran's nuclear program. Moreover, Patrick Clawson of the Iran Security Initiative at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted that such covert efforts were preferable to a more direct military response. In an interview with the New York Times, he said, "Sabotage and assassination is the way to go, if you can do it. It doesn't provoke a nationalist reaction in Iran, which could strengthen the regime. And it allows Iran to climb down if it decides the cost of pursuing a nuclear weapon is too high."
Meanwhile, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was vociferously denying her country's involvement in the incident. During a media briefing, the United States' top diplomat said, "I want to categorically deny any United States involvementin any kind of act of violence inside Iran." But Secretary of State Clinton discussed other issues related to Iran's relationship with the wider world. She drew attention to Iran's recent missile launches and nuclear development activities, strongly demanding that Iran "end its provocative behavior, end its search for nuclear weapons, and rejoin the international community and be a productive member of it." Additionally, she discussed Iran's threat to close the critically-important Straits of Hormuz, saying, "It's part of the lifeline that keeps oil and gas moving around the world. And it's also important to speak as clearly as we can to the Iranians about the dangers of this kind of provocation."
According to the New York Times, the Obama administration in the United States reportedly dispatched a message via clandestine communications channels to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warning him that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would not be tolerated. In a separate report on CBS News, the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey appeared to underline the potential response by his country, saying that the United States would "take action and re-open the strait." Of course, the general consensus was that the re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz could only be achieved by military means.
Latest Developments: Confrontation or Negotiation?
Clearly, the missile launch, the nuclear development news, the sanctions, the threats regarding the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and the targeted assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist, collectively raised the stakes in a burgeoning confrontation between Iran and the wider international community. As January 2012 was coming to a close, attention was on the question of what form that confrontation would take.
Going the route of "soft power" rather than military might, the West wasted no time in intensifying the sanctions regime against Iran in a bid to place pressure on the Islamic Republic's regime to curtail its controversial nuclear development moves. Specifically, the European Union was imposing a phased ban on oil purchases from Iran, while the United States was expanding its sanctions on Iran's banking sector.
According to a statement issued in Belgium, the countries of the European Union would not sign on to new oil contracts with Iran and would terminate any existing contracts by mid-2012. Since the European market has made up a full fifth of Iran's oil exports, this sweeping oil embargo would constitute a crushing blow. Making matters worse for Iran was the news that the European Union would also freeze the assets of the Iranian Central Bank and it would prohibit transactions involving Iranian diamonds, gold, and precious metals.
Expressing marked disapproval for Tehran's lack of transparency regarding its nuclear program, British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Iran had "failed to restore international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program."
Meanwhile, the United States' harsh sanctions regime against Iran would become even more targeted as it focused on the Bank Tejarat for its alleged role in (1) financing Iran's nuclear program, and (2) helping other banks evade international sanctions. In December 2011, United States President Barack Obama ordered a prohibition on any involvement with Iran's central bank. Now, a month later, the United States Treasury was asserting that the new sanctions against Bank Tejarat would target "one of Iran's few remaining access points to the international financial system."
Already diplomatically-isolated, Iran was now well on its way to being seriously financially isolated in the global marketplace. As noted by the United States Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism David Cohen, "The new round of sanctions will deepen Iran's financial isolation, make its access to hard currency even more tenuous and further impair Iran's ability to finance its illicit nuclear program." Indeed, the rial -- Iran's currency -- was being deleteriously affected as it underwent a massive downward slide in value.
In apparent reaction to the measures by the United States and the European Union, Tehran again threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz.
The level of brinkmanship reached new heights as the United States Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, promised that his country and its allies would use any necessary measures to ensure that the crucial marine thoroughfare to the Persian Gulf remained open. In an interview with BBc News, Daalder said, that the Strait of Hormuz "needs to remain open and we need to maintain this as an international passageway. We will do what needs to be done to ensure that is the case." He continued, "Of this I am certain -- the international waterways that go through the Strait of Hormuz are to be sailed by international navies, including ours, the British and the French and any other navy that needs to go through the Gulf. And second, we will make sure that that happens under every circumstance."
Daalder did not foreclose the possibility of a diplomatic solution, saying that the countries of the West stood "ready at any time to sit down and have a serious conversation with [Iran] to resolve this [nuclear] issue with negotiations."
Just days after the war of words was being ratcheted upward, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Tehran was prepared to return to negotiating table as regards its nuclear program. On Jan. 26, 2012, Ahmadinejad said that he was open to the idea of reviving multilateral talks in order to show that Iran remained interested in dialogue. At the start of 2011, negotiationsbetween Iran and a cadre of six nations (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council -- the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) as well as Germany -- ended in stalemate. Indeed, those talks were marked by Iran's refusal to engage in any meaningful dialogue regarding its nuclear program. Now, a year later, Ahmadinejad said on state-run Iranian television, "They have this excuse that Iran is dodging negotiations while it is not the case. Why should we run away from the negotiations?"
There was some suggestion that Iran's interest in a return to the negotiating table might be a sign that international pressure was taking a toll. That being said, Ahmadinejad's words could just as easily be interpreted as a symbolic gesture by a figure head intent on rallying national sentiment. To that end, Ahmadinejad suggested that the West was responsible for the collapse of negotiations to date, saying. "It is the West that needs Iran and the Iranian nation will not lose from the sanctions. It is you who come up with excuses each time and issue resolutions on the verge of talks so that negotiations collapse."
Note that as January 2012 came to a close, inspectors from the IAEA arrived in Iran for a visit to determine the purpose of that country's nuclear development program. Yukiya Amano, the head of the IAEA, expressed hope that the "outstanding issues" regarding Iran's nuclear development would be resolved. Meanwhile, just before departing for Iran, IAEA Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts said, "In particular we hope that Iran will engage with us on our concerns regarding the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program." For its part, Iran said that the inspection would finally prove that Iran's nuclear ambitions were peaceful.
Written by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman,
Editor in Chief, www.countrywatch.com
Houston, Texas
Jan. 31, 2012
***
Editor's Note:
CountryWatch's coverage of global political events and developments is not an endorsement of any country's political priorities or any political interest group's agenda. CountryWatch takes a politics-neutral approach and encourages users to consider a variety of viewpoints and the complex range of parameters when studying either domestic politics or the international spectrum.
***
All CountryWatch content is protected by prevailing copyright. No portion of CountryWatch content can ever be reproduced or republished without expressed written consent from CountryWatch’s Editor in Chief. Any unauthorized usage of CountryWatch content is a violation of this copyright. To contact the Editor in Chief to request permission to use a portion of CountryWatch content, call us at 1-800-879-3885 (US and Canada) or 1-713-355-6500 and ask to be connected with the editorial department or use the contact us page, click the "Content" option.
***
THE FEATURED COUNTRY IS WRITTEN BY DR. DENISE YOUNGBLOOD COLEMAN, EDITOR IN CHIEF, WWW.COUNTRYWATCH.COM
***