EU's 'big three' give Iran last chance
Britain, France, and Germany to offer Iran nuclear technology if it ends uranium enrichment efforts.
Agence France-Presse reports that Britain, France and Germany are
"ready to promise Iran nuclear technology, including a light-water reactor, if Tehran shows it is not secretly building an atomic arsenal, according to a confidential document seen by media and confirmed in Vienna by diplomats."
The Boston Globe reports that Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh of Iran said Wednesday his country would issue its own proposal, but "gave no details other than that
Iran would not budge on the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes."
This offer from the three European heavyweights precedes a Nov. 25 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, which will decide whether to send the case to the UN Security Council where sanctions could be imposed on Tehran.
The US opposes offering Iran any incentives and has repeatedly called for the matter to be sent to the Security Council. But, Britain, France, and Germany want to give the policy of "constructive engagement" one last try before joining the US position. US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday: "Our view is that it's a European proposal, that it's for them to describe, for them to make. ... "We haven't bought on, signed or endorsed it, but we know they are going to do it."
A
Boston Globe editorial asserts that because there is no "acceptable military option" for dealing with Iran, the US "ought to
cooperate with its British, German, and French allies trying to resolve diplomatically what otherwise could become a dangerous crisis."
In the European approach to Tehran, as in most difficult diplomatic challenges, the negotiator has a better chance of success if he comes to the table with credible penalties to impose as well as attractive rewards to bestow.
The editorial also seems to question the approach taken by more hawkish members of the Bush administration.
At the State Department last week, European envoys sketched their negotiating ideas and were excoriated by the State Department's top arms-control official, John Bolton. As with North Korea's nuclear program, the Bush administration is divided between pragmatists and hard-liners such as Bolton, who don't believe in negotiating with potential proliferators or rewarding rogue regimes for not developing nuclear weapons. Meanwhile,
Iran has given President George W. Bush an endorsement of sorts, reports
The Associated Press. Hasan Rowhani, the head of the Iran's top security decision-making body (The Supreme National Security Council), said "We do not desire to see Democrats take over," when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry against Bush.
AP points out that Iran "has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats." That reports cites reaction from both the Bush and Kerry campaigns.
'It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon,' Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said. ... 'It is telling that this president has received the endorsement of a member of the axis of evil,' Kerry campaign spokeswoman Allison Dobson said. As
Reuters points out in a report comparing the Iran policies of Bush and Kerry, "Kerry has argued that the refusal to engage Iran and North Korea while invading Iraq, where no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found, has only
emboldened the United States' enemies." That same report cites a diplomat as saying "Ironically, Iran might actually be better off with Bush, because he's bogged down in Iraq in a way that Kerry would not be because it's not his mess."
Munich-based historian and journalist Heinrich Maetzke see things differently in an opinion piece published in
The Washington Times.
For those who shiver at the prospect of having to live under the shadow of Iranian nukes Mr. Bush's White House is
the only place to look to.
Mr. Maetzke also laments the fact that most Europeans don't see eye to eye with the Bush doctrine.
Just as important [as Bush's statement that those who harbor terrorists will be held responsible] was a much-debated sentence in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address in January 2002: "The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." The famous line amounts to nothing less than a personal promise by the president of the United States. And with the specter of a nuclear Iran and, as a consequence, a nuclear Middle East rising on the horizon, we Europeans actually depend on it being honored.
The
BBC reports that
many Iranians see it as their right to have nuclear technology.
"Why should the US, Britain and Israel all have nuclear weapons and not us?" asks student Saida Hussain. ... From reformers to hardliners, supporters or opponents of the Islamic system, there are few voices against Iran seeking nuclear technology.
Also...
•
Hunting the tiger (
The New York Times)
•
Iraq called 'springboard' for insurgency figure (
The Washington Post)
•
Just say no (
The Guardian)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Matthew Clark.
|
RSS feed