Iran appears to be bent on confrontation on the issue of its nuclear programme. Last week, Teheran broke the International Atomic Energy Agency’s seals on a nuclear plant in Natanz to resume uranium enrichment research. This is clearly a decision to terminate its agreement with the European Union which now wants to refer the matter to the UN Security Council. Since the time the new hardline Iranian Majlis passed a law last year mandating a stoppage of all cooperation with the IAEA, would there be such referral. Should this come to pass, the stage is set for a confrontation.
Teheran’s reckless actions have hardened the consensus against its actions. Russia, which had abstained from voting in the IAEA board of governors meeting in September 2005, and which is a major supplier of nuclear assistance to Teheran, has now called on Iran to return to a moratorium on nuclear enrichment activities and resume full cooperation with the IAEA. Since the September vote, both India and Russia have tried to convince Teheran to see reason, but apparently to little avail. Just what is at stake is evident from the last IAEA report that revealed that Iran had turned over documents it had received from the A.Q. Khan network on casting and machining uranium metal into cores for nuclear weapons. Iran had claimed it had not solicited them, but its record of past deception demands that the IAEA be fully satisfied before giving Iran a clean chit.
We must not lose sight of the key issues here. First, the confrontationist style of the new Iranian government is the root cause of the crisis. Second, that an IAEA vote for a UN referral will hardly amount to a declaration of war on Teheran. It will, however, be a clear signal that the world is not in the mood to tolerate further brinkmanship. India must unambiguously join this consensus. Having voted to warn Teheran to comply with the IAEA in September 2005, India can hardly afford to change its vote in the face of Iranian behaviour thereafter. Abstention, of course, would be the worst of choices, showing us up as a country unable, or unwilling, to take a stand on a matter of vital concern, both to us and the world.
{{/usCountry}}We must not lose sight of the key issues here. First, the confrontationist style of the new Iranian government is the root cause of the crisis. Second, that an IAEA vote for a UN referral will hardly amount to a declaration of war on Teheran. It will, however, be a clear signal that the world is not in the mood to tolerate further brinkmanship. India must unambiguously join this consensus. Having voted to warn Teheran to comply with the IAEA in September 2005, India can hardly afford to change its vote in the face of Iranian behaviour thereafter. Abstention, of course, would be the worst of choices, showing us up as a country unable, or unwilling, to take a stand on a matter of vital concern, both to us and the world.
{{/usCountry}}