US debates carrots, sticks for Iran's nuclear program

Amid a din of uncompromising rhetoric from and about Iran, the UN's permanent five powers and Germany this week worked to hammer out a package of incentives and threats they hope will ensure the Islamic Republic's nuclear program is limited to peaceful purposes.

On the table: giving Iran nuclear reactors and providing fuel for energy production, as well as economic and security incentives. In exchange, Iran would have to give up uranium enrichment - a step that can lead to weapons production - or face UN sanctions or even an arms embargo.

Cutting through layers of mistrust to determine any US role - as well as Iran's ultimate goals - will not be easy, given a relationship calcified by more than 25 years of hostile rhetoric and official silence. But increasingly, analysts say that any deal ultimately depends on direct talks between the US and Iran - and possibly a US "security guarantee" that it will not attack Iran.

"If you are going to solve the problem permanently, US participation is a must," says Nasser Hadian-Jazy, a political scientist at Tehran University who was recently at Columbia University in New York. "It's like the ... elephant in the room. Everybody knows [the US] is there, but not talking about it is not going to solve the problem."

Britain, France, and Germany are spearheading the diplomatic effort on the UN Security Council. But Russia and China are loath to back sanctions that they believe could lead to an arms embargo or military action. Senior diplomats from those nations and the US reported "progress" during talks in London on Wednesday, but no agreement.

Foreign ministers of all six countries are expected to meet shortly, and Russia's National Security Council chief Igor Ivanov has been invited to meet with Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani in coming days in Tehran.

Analysts say that "red lines" on both sides have been shifting, but that no deal is likely to stand unless the US and Iran engage in direct talks. An American "security guarantee" for Iran may be required, experts say, but so far US officials dismiss any deal that would ensure the survival of Iran's current government.

"When the US avoids giving a security guarantee [to Iran], it means they surely want to collapse and destroy the regime," says Saeed Laylaz, a political and security analyst in Tehran. "It is very good for the hard-liners in Iran. They like a critical situation in which they can say to the people: 'The United States of America is why we have trouble in the world.'"

Mr. Laylaz says that Iran would be willing to "stop" uranium enrichment completely with the right deal: a security guarantee, then getting the US directly involved in nuclear negotiations. US sanctions should be removed, he adds, and Iran integrated more fully into the global economy.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow did not rule out the possibility of talks on Wednesday, but said that Iran would have to halt enrichment first. "When that happens, all right, then there may be some opportunities," said Mr. Snow.

The result is a dilemma for Iran. "If you know the US wants to destroy you, and the four borders of your country are occupied by the US military, you know that you should accelerate your uranium enrichment, not suspend it," says Laylaz. "But at the same time, [Iranian officials] are asking the US: 'Please come to the table and start negotiating.' Because they realize there is no country in the world ... that can stop the US if it wants to militarily attack Iran."

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), indicated during talks on Wednesday with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Iran might delay enrichment plans for five or six years and accept the intrusive inspections of the "additional protocol" of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Page: 1 | 2