EDITORIAL
Even though it has perhaps the greatest potential of any single global issue to rapidly degenerate into disaster, the standoff over Iran's uranium enrichment programme has gone on for so long that it elicits boredom in many people.
One blogger recently likened the situation to a marathon game of high-speed chicken, with Iran steadfastly maintaining its right to enrichment in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, and the United States and Israel making veiled threats, which have lately been more direct and out in the open, about what will happen if enrichment isn't stopped. Meanwhile, as noted by former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright in this week's Global Viewpoint, the European Union has mostly taken on the role of the ''good cop'' in the negotiating process, although certain EU members at times echo US President George Bush's well-known refrain that ''all options remain on the table''.
Last week brought fresh hope that on both sides people in a position to put the brakes on this dangerous game are willing to step forward. An article published last week in several European newspapers by former Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati, who is a close advisor to Supreme Leader Seyyed Ali Khamenei, says that Tehran is willing to suspend uranium enrichment for six weeks as a prerequisite to entering into new negotiations with the 5+1 group of nations _ the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany. The offer to Iran, which included financial and political incentives, was made about three weeks ago.
The authenticity of the article was given credence by the fact that a website known to be closely linked to the Supreme Leader reiterated the statement, although as yet Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said only that Iran is seriously considering the offer. Analysts say that Khamenei wants to take responsibility for the nuclear issue away from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has a reputation for being a loose cannon.
Also last week, America's top military officer, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm Mike Mullen, said at a Defence Department news conference that a strike on Iran would be "extremely stressful, very challenging, with consequences that would be difficult to predict". Highly placed members of the US military have long been trying to put the brakes on any preparations for military action against Iran. Mr Mullen is one of these, but the platform for these particular comments was remarkable, as was the timing, as they followed on the heels of a trip to Israel where the likelihood of military action over Iran's nuclear programme was a main topic for discussion. Speculation has been rampant that an Israeli air force exercise involving more than 100 fighter jets was a rehearsal for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. The speculation was fueled by comments from US officials.
Meanwhile, Scott Ritter, former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, has discounted the possibility of an Israeli air strike, saying Israel doesn't have the capabilities to support such a strike. Mr Ritter, who accurately predicted that Iraq had no WMDs, does believe, however, that the US leadership is determined to mount an attack in the near future.
A number of people have warned of the consequences of a strike by either the US or Israel, including International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed Elbaradei, who recently said: "A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball.'' Mr Elbaradei also voiced the opinion, shared by many top US military brass, that he didn't believe Iran posed a ''current, grave and urgent danger'', which clearly should be the only criterion for a pre-emptive strike.
If the now very tentative proposal for negotiations does somehow bear fruit, some will say it is a victory for ''bad cop'' diplomacy. The problem with this assessment is that the whole world has been taken on a wild ride that could end in a crash at any time. At the very least, tensions in the region over the standoff have already had a major effect on global oil prices. It's time to take one option off the table.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next
