Iran has said that it has a peaceful nuclear programme, but years of hidden activity despite UN resolutions have created doubts about whether it is completely for peaceful purposes. George W. Bush's administration in Washington does not believe Iran, and thinks that it is working to develop nuclear weapons.
The two states' differences over the transparency (or even right to exist) of the Iranian nuclear programme are exacerbated by the profound differences Iran and the United States have on how they think the world should be run.
One is a secular democratic superpower with an administration offering the most aggressive foreign policy in decades (including the extraordinary concept of preventative regime change).
The other is a Muslim democratic state with a leadership working hard to promote its allies in the region (including a range of radical groups).
The two world views are directly opposed, but this does not mean that United States or Iran have to go to war with each other. They need to learn how to agree to disagree, as most states around the world manage to do.
In order to manage that, the status of Iran's nuclear programme needs to be very clear, and the visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the United States this week has done a lot to publicise Iran's present position, as well as increase Ahmadinejad's personal standing given the dignified way he handled the personal abuse flung at him by both his hosts and the demonstrators.
In August this year Iran agreed with the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) on an inspection programme and timeline for implementing the required protocols for Iran to meet international law on nuclear programme.
To date there has been no suggestion from the IAEA that this is not happening, and the head of IAEA, Mohammad Al Baradei emphasises the importance of sorting out the outstanding issues, as defined in the agreement.
This week, Ahmadinejad repeated that Iran wants to comply with the IAEA. He has made it very clear that Iran's programme is for peaceful purposes, that it is within international law, that the enhancement of the nuclear fuel is below five per cent which is the limit required by the IAEA for fuel that is used for power plants.
Ahmadinejad has agreed that the facilities should be inspected, and has said that the inspectors should reassure themselves that there is no diversion of nuclear material out of the system.
"All our nuclear activities have been completely peaceful and transparent," Ahmadinejad told the UN General Assembly this week. He used his United Nations speech to accuse Western powers of seeking to deprive Iran of its right to nuclear energy through military threats and "illegal" sanctions.
The issue has become one of trust: either you believe Ahmadinejad when he says Iran's nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes and there are no weapons or you believe Bush when he says the opposite.
Obviously, the answer cannot remain a matter of trust. Verification by the IAEA has to go ahead and Iran has to make every effort to ensure that the inspections are full and complete, in order to convince world opinion that its nuclear programme is not breaking international law.
Completely clear
The question of allowing inspections is not completely clear. Most nuclear states allow the IAEA access, but there are some states with nuclear programmes including nuclear weapons which refuse to allow IAEA inspections, arguing that the treaties that set up the IAEA are unfair and need rewriting.
India and Pakistan are two such states which are open about their nuclear assets, and Israel is another which has not declared its assets at all.
Nonetheless, Iran is right to offer full inspection since only complete disclosure will stop any doubts created by Iran's deliberate obfuscation over the years. It would also be a very powerful tool in its argument with the United States.
From its side, the United States has to recognise that it has a massive credibility gap to overcome. It has made its accusations against Iran, but has not proved its point yet.
The time has long gone when anyone can take the words of a US president on trust, particularly after the fiasco of claiming that Saddam's Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist.
A substantial part of the support for the invasion of Iraq was based on trust that the weapons existed, and that trust was badly abused by the US.
The way forward for the Iranian nuclear programme is for Iran to allow the IAEA inspectors into the country, and for the United States to accept that a sovereign state has the right to a nuclear programme.
Your comments
Bush administration's onslaught against Iran for its peaceful nuclear program is politically motivated. Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors on a regular basis and it has also signed NPT.
Bush administration consists of neo-cons and Christian right extremist groups. Therefore US foreign policy is ideologically motivated and has shown war monger attitudes. But do these people realize their limitations as demonstrated by Iraq and Afghanistan?
Hasnat
Columbia, Maryland,USA
Posted: September 27, 2007, 04:50
Send us your comments
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Gulf News may edit comments for length and clarity but will not change the tone of the message. Comments will only be accepted all if fields (including name) are filled correctly and the message isn't abusive, defamatory or offensive. The Gulf News website will only print your first name along with your comment. Please state in the message if you wish to remain anonymous. All comments sent may be forwarded for use in the Gulf News newspaper.
