The biggest Iranian bazaar in the middle of Tehran. Photo courtesy of Flickr/YoungRobV.

Filling the void left by the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq and strengthened by the apparent failure of the United States’ ‘remaking’ of the Middle East project in the aftermath of 9/11, Iran is re-emerging as a regional power. Just as Iran resurges, tensions between it and the West have risen sharply. The bone of contention--Iran’s nuclear program-- has quickly mushroomed into the Middle East issue with the whole of the Western world convinced that Iran poses a serious threat should it go nuclear. Still others cry hypocrisy, in light of the sanctimony of regional and global nuclear powers.

To add insult to injury, the shocking comments of Iran’s President concerning the wiping of another sovereign (Israel) off the map, his questioning of Holocaust, or calling 9/11 a “suspect event”, have done little to defuse the growing Western unease with Iran’s nuclear program. In the same vein of tactless statesmanship, recently the Israeli cabinet Minister, Rafi Eitan, suggested his country could kidnap the Iranian President, naturally causing outrage amongst the Iranians, while the former US Presidential hopeful, Senator Hillary Clinton, in a not so distant interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America”, openly declared if she was president she would “totally obliterate” the Iranians if they “consider” launching an attack on Israel. This threat comes on the heels of repeated refusals by the United States to rule out nuclear first strikes against Iran; declarations in direct violation of the US-Negative Security Assurance pledge to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear armed members of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as is the case with Iran. Such threats are equally in contravention of International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996), as well as Security Council Resolution 984. Such reckless fighting words from all sides only serve to aggravate a hyped up, irrational race towards war.

Sensibly to date, the Security Council has maintained diplomacy will be the modus operandi in dealing with Iran. However, how will diplomacy prevail when the current debate surrounding Iran’s nuclear program is misinformed, chiefly dominated by one version of the discourse? This commentary will analyze the escalating crisis by getting past the hype, fear, and assumptions in an attempt to unravel the motivations behind the Iranian position.

History of Iran’s Nuclear Program

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. – Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The genesis of Iran’s nuclear program can be traced to the 1950s, when the country began flirting with the idea of developing nuclear energy. Iran’s nuclear program was conceived with enthusiastic help from the United States, as well as European governments, notably France and Germany. Iran ratified the NPT in 1970, bringing its program under the inspection regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran has equally ratified other treaties which proscribe the development and use of WMDs.

The 1979 Revolution, which toppled the Iranian monarchy, brought an abrupt end to Western support of Iran’s nuclear program and the Iran-Iraq war, which started a year after, virtually closed the door to further cooperation. The program was later revived without Western assistance.

While the political climate in Iran is vastly different, the position of Iranian governments both pre- and post-Revolution concerning the country’s need and inalienable right to nuclear technology has not changed. Iran has always maintained its need for nuclear power as an alternative source of energy to supply its booming population (some 70 million) and rapid industrialization. It is estimated, at current rates of production, the country’s oil reserves will be depleted within decades. From the times of the last Iranian monarch to the present, Iran’s position is that its valuable yet finite oil resources should be used for high-value products and not wasted on generating electricity. This is not a conveniently packaged reason offered by Iran. At the inception of the program, the Gerald Ford Administration gave credence to this claim. The Ford strategy paper at the time stated that: "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals"; an assessment later echoed by others, including the US National Academy of Sciences, and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the British Parliament.

Many important details of Iran’s nuclear program simply do not form part of the mainstream debate. Contrary to the myth surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, an informed and reasonable observer will quickly realize there are indeed two sides to every coin, and that claims of the Iranian nuclear ‘threat’ are arguably more political than factual; that the United States’s unbending stance in rejecting Iran’s offer of negotiations without preconditions – United States insists uranium enrichment must be totally suspended – has served to exacerbate a dire situation. The fact is, Iran is in compliance with international law in practicing its legitimate right to develop nuclear energy technology in accordance with the NPT. Let us explore some additional facts.

First, Iran informed IAEA of its plans to resume its nuclear program. The latter offered assistance in producing enriched uranium under its Technological Assistance Program. Second, article IV of NPT affords an inalienable right to signatory nations to nuclear technology "for peaceful purposes." Demanding Iran – a signatory of the treaty – to suspend enrichment without credible evidence it is developing nuclear weapons is, in essence, a violation of Article IV. In law, Iran is under no obligation to negotiate so long as it does not deviate from the “peaceful purposes” test – under international pressure it is negotiating as a confidence building measure. Third, the IAEA, whose detective work in the field is more accurate than ‘remote detection’ highly relied on by intelligence services, has conducted countless on-site inspections on Iran’s nuclear sites – by 2005 alone, 1200 person/days of intrusive inspection were carried out – and while it has reported on technical compliance failures, it has not produced a scintilla of evidence suggesting Iran’s nuclear program is other than for civilian purposes. Fourth, the IAEA has repeatedly confirmed Iran’s nuclear program “remains in peaceful use.” Fifth, Iran has met its obligations under the NPT, and when issues have arisen, responded with remedial steps. Sixth, Iran proprio motu implemented the IAEA Additional Protocol and offered to entertain more rigorous transparency measures, bringing its program under a most strict inspection regime. Iran’s referral to the Security Council in 2006 brought an end to such initiatives, and its full cooperation with the IAEA has since suffered as a result. Seventh, Iran has granted unprecedented concessions and invited Western countries to become partners in its uranium enrichment program as further transparency measures. Eighth, Iran has offered to renounce plutonium extraction technology, negating its capacity to build nuclear bombs. Ninth, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader and head of the armed forces, has repeatedly declared Iran will not attack any country, issuing a ‘fatwa’/ban against the production and use of nuclear weapons -- calling for a nuclear weapons free Middle East. Let it not be mistaken, aside from the fact that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East will work to the detriment of Iranian interests, the country is equally under no illusion that it can ever compete in a nuclear war in view of the superior technology and arsenal of other regional and world nuclear powers. Tenth and finally, the IAEA has condemned the United States over reports issued by a congressional committee convened on Iran’s nuclear program, calling its contents “erroneous and misleading.”