Escalatieproces Iran ingezet
Financial Times over het tweede pad
Het escalatieproces ten aanzien van Iran wordt kennelijk voortgezet. Uit onderstaande berichtgeving in de Financial Times van de afgelopen twee dagen valt het volgende op te merken:
- Een compromis voorstel dat Iran begin deze week overeenkwam met Rusland werd afgewezen. Dit behelsde zeer beperkte verrijking binnen Iran gecombineerd met een uitgebreid inspectieregiem. Rusland trok zijn steun in nadat de VS het afwees. In feite kwam dit voorstel overeen met plan B van de International Crisis Group in haar recente rapport, en van voormalig IAEA pvv directeur Pellaud in juni (Financial Times 270605) vorig jaar. Financial Times 090306 (UN unlikely to make Iranian nuclear deal easier) : "Earlier this week, however, the EU and US dismissed an Iranian offer to restrict but not terminate its uranium enrichment and sign up to a binding regime of spot checks by international nuclear inspectors." In de gedrukte versie van de Financial Times van 100306 werd hier aan toegevoegd: "Moscow briefly endorsed the idea before being dissuaded by US pressure."
- Rusland heeft duidelijk gemaakt dat het geen sanctie-voorstellen in de Veiligheidsraad zal ondersteunen. De VS weten dit en hebben al een plan klaar om de zaak buiten de Veiligheidsraad om te regelen. Onderminister Burns heeft dat proces in detail uiteengezet . Het gaat in feite om het smeden van een 'coalition of the willing' die wel verdergaande maatregelen wil nemen. (Financial Times US lays out plan to apply pressure to Iran): "Noting that the US already has unilateral sanctions against Iran, Mr Burns went on: “But it’s going to be incumbent upon our allies around the world, and interested countries, to show that they are willing to act, should the words and resolutions of the United Nations not suffice.”"
- Het is logisch dat die hardere maatregelen kunnen uitlopen in een oorlog. Die optie is immers expliciet op tafel gehouden door alle Amerikaanse regeringswoordvoerders. Het is populair onder EU diplomaten en opiniemakers om dit proces als bluf te omschrijven, om Iran te overtuigen om in te binden. De Amerikaanse experts zeggen terecht: wat heeft bluf voor zin als er geen bereidheid is om harde maatregelen te nemen? Daarover zei de Russische minister Lavrov het volgende: (Financial Times, UN unlikely to make Iranian nuclear deal easier): "With the US and Europe insisting on a freeze, Russia has warned that the crisis could lead to a repeat of the Iraq conflict. “It looks so déjà vu, you know,” said Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister. “I don’t believe we should engage in something that might become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”¦"
- De politieke steun van de EU en andere Amerikaanse bondgenoten voor het escalatieproces kan heel makkelijk ontaarden in een militaire escalatie, ook als die door de meeste deelnemers niet gewenst is. Dat wordt sterk in de hand gewerkt door de militante opstelling van de Iraanse regering, die zich beschermd weet door de beschikking over het olie wapen. Zelfs een dreiging van oorlog en het afsnijden van de olie aanvoer verhoogt de olieprijs op de wereldmarkten. Naar het binnenland toe in zowel de VS als Iran kunnen de regeringsleiders zich geen smadelijke terugtocht veroorloven.
Karel Koster
Artikel één:
Financial Times
US lays out plan to apply pressure to Iran
By Mark Turner at the United Nations and Guy Dinmore in Washington
March 9 2006
The US laid out a step-by-step plan on Wednesday to apply pressure on Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons programme, including the use of targeted sanctions. The plan would involve the United Nations and a new coalition of allies.The five permanent members of the UN Security Council met in New York to tackle the first step. This would be the wording of a presidential statement urging Iran to cease its uranium enrichment activities, and call on Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to report back, possibly within two weeks.
In Washington, Nicholas Burns, under-secretary of state, told a congressional committee that the US wanted the statement -- which would not have the force of law -- to “condemn” Iran. Next, he said, the US would move to a binding chapter seven resolution designed to “isolate” the Islamic regime and “hopefully influence its behaviour”. Noting that the US already has unilateral sanctions against Iran, Mr Burns went on: “But it’s going to be incumbent upon our allies around the world, and interested countries, to show that they are willing to act, should the words and resolutions of the United Nations not suffice.” A “number of countries” were already exploring possible targeted sanctions aimed at the regime and its nuclear and missile programmes, not the Iranian people, he said in the clearest exposition to date of what the US hopes to achieve, having finally managed to refer Iran to the UN after more than two years of diplomacy.
Analysts in Washington said Mr Burns’ remarks reflected a broad expectation in the Bush administration that it would not be able to persuade Russia and China on the security council to back meaningful sanctions, and that the US would look to forming an ad hoc alliance of allies, as it had with the “coalition of the willing” for Iraq. France might be persuaded to join that coalition, along with east European allies and Japan and Australia, but Germany was in doubt, the analysts said.Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, appeared to rule out the possibility of UN sanctions. Any solution, he said, should “not endanger the ability of the IAEA to continue its work in Iran, while making sure there is no danger for the non-proliferation regime.”
“I don’t think sanctions as a means to solve a crisis have ever achieved a goal in the recent history,” he said, adding that there was “no military solution”.
European Union diplomats are also wary of imposing sanctions on Tehran, arguing that the most significant such step – oil sanctions – would be unthinkable at a time of high energy prices. They add that taking the issue to the Security Council does not close off the possibility of reaching an agreement in coming weeks, a hope echoed yesterday by Mr ElBaradei.
Artikel twee:
Financial Times
UN unlikely to make Iranian nuclear deal easier
By Roula Khalaf in London, Dan Dombey in Brussels and Guy Dinmore in Washington
March 9 2006
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, on Thursday said a nuclear-armed Iran would be hundreds of times more threatening to US interests, a day after Tehran’s nuclear dispute was sent to the UN Security Council. As officials in the US and Europe considered action against Tehran, Ms Rice indicated that Iran was already the US’s biggest challenge because of its alleged meddling in the Middle East.“If you can take that and multiply it by several hundred, you can imagine Iran with a nuclear weapon and the threat they would then pose to that region,” she told a congressional hearing.
But given the narrow range of options available and the difficulty of maintaining international unity, Security Council involvement on Iran will not make it easier to address the nuclear dilemma. US and European officials say that Tehran could, within one year, master the uranium enrichment technology that could be used for an atomic bomb. So, although diplomats in Europe speak of incremental pressure at the UN, stopping Iran’s quest for the technology will, in practice, require an accelerated approach.The first action, expected next week, is the easiest part: a presidential statement at the Security Council urging Iran to cease enrichment activities, with a deadline of weeks rather than months, according to diplomats.
If Tehran failed to respond, the Council would consider targeted sanctions.But it is at this point that the international front against Iran is likely to start unravelling, with Russia and China, two permanent members of the Security Council with veto power, resisting sanctions.Nicholas Burns, US undersecretary for state, outlined this week how the US had few options at its disposal because of the lack of international support for significant sanctions. The US had no illusions about being able to resolve this crisis through the Security Council and was in the process of seeking to put together an ad hoc coalition of “concerned countries”, he told a Washington think-tank.
From Mr Burns’ briefing, analysts said it was apparent that the Bush administration’s policy relied on making loud threats with little substance, in the hope that Iran would capitulate. If the Islamic regime did not retreat, then the US had not worked out how it would proceed, analysts said.
A senior British official on Thursday said Security Council involvement sent a strong message to Iran that it would pay a price for defying international demands.Divisions within the world community, however, are likely to confuse the message Tehran is receiving and could reinforce those in the Iranian regime arguing for confrontation.The nuclear crisis, more-over, comes at a time when Tehran is feeling confident, encouraged by high oil prices and strong political influence across the region. Iranian officials openly suggest that Tehran could use its allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories to cause unrest and harm US interests.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is still hoping that the search for a compromise will continue.Earlier this week, however, the EU and US dismissed an Iranian offer to restrict but not terminate its uranium enrichment and sign up to a binding regime of spot checks by international nuclear inspectors.Running 20-160 centrifuges would still allow Iran to perfect the uranium enrichment technology, European officials said, and Tehran would later try to bargain for more substantial experiments.
“It was a very big window of opportunity, which the Europeans did not pay attention to,” Ali-Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, told the FT. “The Europeans are letting the Americans take their multilateral policy hostage. We have not received any positive response from the Europeans and what has happened [at the IAEA] is an indication that they have ignored this positive step from the Iranian side.”With the US and Europe insisting on a freeze, Russia has warned that the crisis could lead to a repeat of the Iraq conflict. “It looks so déjà vu, you know,” said Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister. “I don’t believe we should engage in something that might become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”¦
Paul Pillar, the head of CIA intelligence analysis for the Middle East during the Iraq war, who resigned last year, on Thursday revealed that the CIA had warned the US administration in early 2003 that an invasion of Iraq was likely to “increase the pace and security” of Iran’s weapons of mass destruction programmes.Speaking at the Middle East Institute, he also disclosed the CIA had warned that Iraq might try to reconstitute its WMD programme five to 10 years after US occupation unless a security umbrella existed. These and other warnings were ignored, he said.
Find this article at:
www.ft.com/cms/s/6364a31e-afa4-11da-b417-0000779e2340,s01=1.html
Naar boven
Naar beginpagina