Iran's Options
A commenter writes:
"Here's a simple question: if Iran decides to pull out of the NPT [link] -- and countries pull out of treaties they don't like all the time -- what will happen next? The NPT seems to be the legal stick of choice with which the punditry beats Iran, so it's reasonable that Iran would take it away by dropping out of the treaty. Then what? Because the beatings ain't going to stop, we all know that."
A fair question and one that raises a seldom-mentioned part of the Iran debate: Tehran's options.
Iran is currently providing the IAEA with access beyond that which is required by Tehran's legal obligations. For example, Iran's additional protocol to its safeguards agreement has not yet been ratified, but Tehran has been behaving as if the agreement were in force. Iran has also been giving the IAEA access to certain military facilities, although it is not obligated to do so.
Here's what Iranian Chief Negotiator Ali Larijani had to say about the matter in a recent FT interview:
Q: Is leaving the NPT an option for Iran?
A: The NPT is still alive and can survive. Iran will stay in the NPT. If the treaty is implemented well, it can help international order.
Q: You've said that if you're referred to the Security Council, you will not apply the Additional Protocol. Is that the limit of your reaction to referral?
A: The Additional Protocol and the suspension were approved by the Majlis (Iran's parliament). If we are referred to the Security Council, the government is obliged by the Majlis to lift all voluntary measures including the AP.
Q: Does this mean you would resume fuel production, industrial enrichment?
A: Yes.
Iran would not be in violation of their safeguards agreement if it took these steps. It could then argue that they ought not be penalized by the UNSC because they aren't doing anything illegal.
The Iranians may not persuade the Security Council, which could still act if it wanted to. But these are far less drastic steps than withdrawing from the NPT - something only North Korea has done.
On top of that, I don't think it's in Iran's short-term interest to withdraw- there's no reason to do so unless the Iranians are ready to boot inspectors and actually develop nuclear weapons. They aren't.
Additionally, Iran's nuclear ambitions are currently ambiguous. That would change if they withdrew.
A while back, I wrote:
"[T]here's some evidence that the Iranians realize they'd be painting a target on themselves if they took such a drastic step.
Hassan Rowhani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, discussed the matter 11 February [2005] before an audience of university students. According to ISNA:
Talking about the legal and political consequences of Iran leaving the NPT, Rowhani said: The consequences will be of a political and legal nature. From a legal point of view any country for the sake of its national security and interests, can leave the NPT providing that it gives 90 days notice to the UN. However, from a political viewpoint, it means that it is preparing to build nuclear bombs.
He added: Americans were trying to prove that Iran was after nuclear bombs and they would have been proved right, if we had left the NPT.
Rowhani stated: Currently we are not in a normal situation. Americans are leveling accusations against us and if we decide to leave the NPT, then Americans will be proved right and the initial outcome of such action will be the referring of our dossier to the UN Security Council."
Legally, a withdrawal would be kind of sticky. According to this French document, Iran would arguably still be responsible for its IAEA safeguards violations. And my understanding is that withdrawing from the NPT is not synonymous with withdrawing from the IAEA.
Regardless, the facts on the ground (unsafeguarded nuclear facilities), as well as the unmistakable signal that Iran is building nuclear weapons, would obviously the most important thing.
The discussion of withdrawing from the NPT is also related to the concerns about the spread of nuclear fuel facilities. One of the reasons people fear the widespread acquisition of such facilities is that states could legally acquire such facilities and develop a breakout nuclear weapons capability.
BTW, this issue isn't new. Some proposals for dealing with this scenario can be found here and here. Here too.
Update [2006-1-26 22:11:17 by pkerr]:
This is in comments too, but I thought I'd add it here:
Q: So what happens if Iran withdraws all of its voluntary measures but does not leave the NPT?
A: It will worsen its position in the UNSC. Iran's been found in noncompliance with its SGA. It can, therefore, be referred to the council. The council can take action against Iran.
I don't think it's a good strategy for Iran to pull, but it's better than withdrawing. Tehran might've gotten more traction with that approach a year ago, but their new pres. has since dug a pretty big hole...
Iran would seem to have the upper hand with the US military being degraded piecemeal in Iraq, and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq controlling large areas of the country. Also, with the price of oil over $60 a barrel, more violence in the oil regions would be very bad economically, particularly in an election year.
Unless Bush wants all hell to break loose in the Gulf, another war is not an option for the US. It wasn't supposed to wind up like this, Iran was supposed to look at Iraq and be jealous of the benefits of US style secular democracy.
January 26, 2006 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what happens if Iran withdraws all of its voluntary measures but does not leave the NPT?
January 26, 2006 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran is currently providing the IAEA with access beyond that which is required by Tehran's legal obligations...Iran has also been giving the IAEA access to certain military facilities, although it is not obligated to do so.
...
Regardless, the facts on the ground (unsafeguarded nuclear facilities), as well as the unmistakable signal that Iran is building nuclear weapons, would obviously the most important thing.
So, Iran is currently exceeding whatever agreements it has signed on to; however we have this crisis anyway, where everyone is running around saying, "What are we going to do about Iran???" and recommending sanctions and the like. But if Iran withdrew from the NPT, then the time to panic would really be at hand.
Surely you can understand why this looks like a manufactured crisis?
January 26, 2006 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never claimed it was a crisis. But it's a serious problem. It's important to remember that several questions about their nuclear program have been unresolved for awhile.
I think my new post might clarify this a bit.
January 26, 2006 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will worsen its position in the UNSC. Iran's been found in noncompliance with its SGA. It can, therefore, be referred to the council. The council can take action against Iran.
I don't think it's a good strategy for Iran to pull, but it's better than withdrawing. Tehran might've gotten more traction with that approach a year ago, but their new pres. has since dug a pretty big hole...
January 26, 2006 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never claimed it was a crisis. But it's a serious problem. It's important to remember that several questions about their nuclear program have been unresolved for awhile.
Whether you have claimed it's a crisis or not ("serious problem"?), we've got people, here and elsewhere, recommending sanctions against Iran, sanctions which you must know will result in a great deal of misery and suffering in that country (as well as having the -- unintended? -- consequence of further popularizing hardline rule in Iran). Military experts are showing up on the talking head shows expounding on our military options. The news is full of Iran and nukes. It seems the world is treating it like a crisis, whatever you are calling it. And again, based on your own posts, it doesn't look as if what Iran has done warrants all this ... excitement.
January 26, 2006 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you say makes sense provided Iran believes that it isn't being treated as if it's already developing nuclear weapons, which is how Iran is being portrayed in the US/AIPAC propaganda offensive. Iran is even being threatened with a pre-emptive -- possibly even nuclear -- strike. At some point Iran might conclude that it wouldn't be treated any worse than if it did withdraw from the NPT.
What, afterall, did Iraq gain by letting Hans Blix and his inspectors back into Iraq and letting them look inside his palaces (where they found no WMDs)?
It's important that Iran not get to that point, and European countries seem to understand that Iran's cooperation depends on it believing it has something to lose. Given its track record with Iraq, I'm not so sure neo-con America does.
January 26, 2006 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of the UNSC, the US and the EU2 would be more angry, if that's possible. I'm not sure Russia and China would necessarily be harsher towards Iran.
Iran probably will pull out of at least some voluntary measures if referred I expect that to include a letter that it will no longer accept being held to the additional protocol. It announced it would do so and its legistlative branch required it to do so long beforehand.
Russia and China possibly will see that as the predictable and expected cost of a UNSC referral that they counciled against.
After Iran pulls out, What is the legal and political situation?
January 26, 2006 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I've answered those questions already.
January 26, 2006 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any solution will have to be very clear as to
- what Iran has to do to comply
- the benefits of cooperation and costs of defection.
The point of transparency is to make one's intentions as clear as possible. Both Iran and the US need to do that.January 26, 2006 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess "pull out" was unclear. I wasn't asking about pulling out of the NPT, but withdrawing its cooperation with the additional protocols.
The answer it would worsen its position with the UNSC - the Council can take action because of its SGA violations - is not really an answer if we are talking about withdrawing cooperation with the additional protocols.
Iran broke its SG agreements whether it withdraws its protocols cooperation or not. The council can take action whether Iran withdraws its protocols cooperation or not.
Withdrawing its protocols cooperation will give the US one more talking point, but talking points are free and nearly infinite. Nobody not already aligned against Iran will take that as proof that Iran wants weapons.
Legally, would withdrawing its protocols cooperation change Iran's legal requirements?
January 26, 2006 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
...my understanding is that withdrawing from the NPT is not synonymous with withdrawing from the IAEA.
Currently, India has not signed the NPT, but is represented on the IAEA Board of Governors.
January 26, 2006 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This all has a familiar feel to it. There seems not to be agreement on very much of what Iran says it is doing and what some sources propose they are doing. There are also very apparent conflicts that are interwoven with aspects of terrorism, economics and politics.
I really don't see a good outcome on the horizon, unless persons at the highest levels of this escalating standoff decide they will engage in a meaningful dialog. And just for the sake of making my position understood, I am mistrustful of any input from the administration because their track record of getting things right and objectively framed is dismal at best. Possible outcomes like Hamas rising to political power are all too predictable in light of the Bush WH stance on so many of the issues at hand. Iran is no different. All the tough talk is having the opposite effect from that we are seeking. That is assuming Bush and his cronies are actually seeking what is in our interests. Results on many issues indicate that may not be the case. And Congress isn't even in the game.
thepeoplechoose
January 27, 2006 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
This discussion over Iran's "options" is a bit surreal to me, as it seems to take place in an alternate universe where certain Atlantic nation-states exert at least 80% control/dominance over the Persian nation-state and get to make decisions about how the Persian nation-state and its people will behave without any reference to them or their interests.
Per the CIA Factbook, Iran is a nation of 75 million people with a GDP of $500 billion. The Factbook goes on to say that its economy is hobbled by excessive state intervention, but with oil headed toward $100/bbl (and probably much higher over the next 30 years) they can certainly afford a lot of inefficiency at the Western world's expense. Iran's population is fairly well educated and the demographics are younger than any of the Atlantic nation-states.
Does it occur to anyone involved in these discussions that the Atlantic nation-states just might not get to decided what Iran will do? That Iran might have its own interests, and might take actions (including short term sacrifice) to achieve them? That its people might be as patriotic toward their own nation as some of the more patriotic Atlantic states (even if they aren't overly fond of their current government? Then again, the current President of the US took office with a margin of 0.5% of voters)? And that they might just view attempts by the Atlantic states to determine their actions and their future as unwarrented arrogance?
Or is that just something too silly to even talk about?
sPh
January 27, 2006 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can there be clairty? Was what Iraq faced clear? Europe and the UN said one thing while the United States had it's own agenda. How can Iran trust that US/Israel won't simply undermine or doublecross whatever the UN says about what Iran must do and what the consequences are if it doesn't?
It's easy to talk about transparency in the abstract, but we live in the world. And "transparent" is the last word I'd use to describe this process, both as to how Iraq was treated, and as to how North Korea and Iran are being treated now. Nothing is clear.
US unilateralism has so undermined the authority of internationalism that it may be too late to take a clear approach. America has shown its contempt for international law in so many ways recently, that if Iran is rational it should probably conclude that nothing it does short of committing national suicide will satisfy the United States and Israel.
In the face of that, what actual steps can Europe or the UN take?
January 27, 2006 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. It would, however, signal that Iran is less willing to cooperate which could induce the UNSC to take harsher action faster. If you want a more concrete prediction, look elsewhere.
January 27, 2006 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The post was obviously confined to Iran's legal options RE: its IAEA/NPT obligations. The UNSC has the legal authority to take a range of actions againat Iran. How effective any of those options would be is open to question.
January 27, 2006 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
True. Israel and Pakistan also have IAEA SGAs...the difference is that they can pick which facilities that the IAEA gets to safeguard. NPT member-states don't.
January 27, 2006 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the US wants Iran to pull out. Until now, much to the frustration of the US and Bolton, Iran has been in full compliance with the NPT, and according to the IAEA, whatever safeguards breaches occurred in Iran have been or are being remedied in accordance with the rules of the IAEA.
Forcing Iran out of the NPT would have a double-effect: it would put a final nail in the NPT, which the US has been systematically undermining (giving Bolton yet another opportunity to say "Its Dead, Dead, Dead, and I don't want it to come back" just as he said about the Biological Weapons Convention inspection regime initiative)
Second, it would be touted as "proof positive" that Iran is building nukes -- which until now has been sorely lacking despite all the casual references to "Iran's nuclear program" found in the US media.
So, I suspect that the US has a plan to force Iran out of the NPT, either by making it intolerable for Iran to abide by IAEA requirements, or to stir up such a nationalistic backlash in Iran that forces the gov't to withdraw.
April 21, 2006 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The UNSC does not have the authority to make demands on Iran that exceed the NPT which is a multilateral treaty which is even binding on the UNSC members (at least legally.)
The US managed to move Iran's file from the IAEA to the UNSC through a trick manouvre, but it was NOT for "noncompliance" pursuant to Article 19 of Iran's safeguards agreement, which requires the "diversion" of nuclear material to weapons programs (In fact that IAEA has said that all fissile material in Iran has been accounted for and none has been diverted.)
April 21, 2006 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran has already stopped voluntarily abiding by the Additional Protocol and has dismantled some of the cameras that were put in place pursuant to the Additional Protocol. however, Iran is sticking to its original Safeguards agreement.
April 21, 2006 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your "clarity" statement is based on the assumption that both sides want to resolve their differences. They don't. Specifically, the US wants to topple the Iranian regime, not resolve differences with it.
The intention of the US, acting under the influence of the NeoCons and the pro-ISraeli lobby, is to use the nuclear issue as a pretext for regime change to secure Israel's interests in the region. Iranians know this. Americans themselves probably dont - yet.
This has nothing to do with nuclear issues, so no amount of discussion or compromise will mollify the war mongers in the US. Every concession will result in greater demands. That's been the trend so far: you yourself point out that IRan is already doing more than it is legally required to do, and yet Bush has threatened to nuke them.
April 21, 2006 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny thing is India cast a vote against Iran at the IAEA board meeting, after US bribed India with promises of nuclear cooperation in violation of the NPT, to induce India to help force Iran give up its rights under the same NPT...
Ironies within Ironies . ..
April 21, 2006 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink