10.10.2009, 13:17
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KJ09Ak04.html">http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KJ09Ak04.html</a><!-- m -->
Zitat:Oct 9, 2009
When 5+1 = 1+1
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
With the "Iran Six" nations agreeing at their meeting in Geneva last week to hold further talks on the Iran nuclear standoff, the chances of a breakthrough have increased considerably.
...
Equally important is the relatively surprising news that Russia, France and perhaps even the US had agreed in principle to assist Iran with the procurement of the medium-enriched uranium that Tehran needs for a small research reactor
...
The Geneva decisions have opened the door for European participation in Iran's nuclear program, hitherto monopolized by Russia, which is Iran's sole nuclear partner. Should France, which has been actively trying to get a foot in the Middle East nuclear market, succeed, it would also be a boon for French diplomacy, due to the diplomatic and symbolic value attached to such a venture.
It is conceivable to imagine other areas of cooperation, such as nuclear waste management, where the US in particular could give tremendous assistance to Iran, assuming that the nuclear crisis is resolved within a framework acceptable to all.
...
That means that Iran's incremental gain at the initial Geneva talk should be correctly interpreted from a process approach as simply a part of a puzzle that would need to be in sync with all the necessary elements of a breakthrough. In the event of the latter, the nuclear standoff would be eventually put to rest, Iran's nuclear file normalized, sanctions lifted, and troubled US-Iran relations would be put on the path of normalization.
The latter requires a more in-depth dialogue that would allow more confidence-building measures between the US and Iran, without which the initial gains will disappear. Confidence-building is a tricky business that can be unraveled by the negative influence of nay-sayers.
For instance, some have attacked Iran, accusing it of duplicity. They have warned the Obama administration of the perils of making any nuclear deal with Iran short of disbanding its nuclear fuel cycle. There is almost no mention of the legal framework of the dialogue that figures prominently in the background.
That is, the fact that Iran is entitled to possess a peaceful nuclear program - including a fuel cycle - under the terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which it is a signatory, as long as it is covered by the International Atomic Energy Agency's surveillance and safeguard mechanisms.
...