Solving the Iraninan nuclear crisis: Regime change versus diplomatic track

Résumé du document

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the hidden Iranian nuclear program starts in 1987. In December 2002, the United States accuses Iran to seek to develop a Weapons of Mass Destruction program and in June 2003, the IAEA reports after inspection of suspect sites that Iran failed to comply with Non Proliferation Treaty. Iran claims that its nuclear program aims at producing civilian nuclear energy, as the article IV of the 1970 Non Proliferation Treaty authorizes, whereas the great powers are concerned about the risks of a hijacking of the civilian technologies in order to produce nuclear weapons. The enrichment process started in the Ispahan facilities could enable Iran to produce up to two atomic bombs per year within a ten years delay. This delay is not certain given that the International Atomic Energy Agency is not allowed to monitor all the Iranian nuclear facilities and given that the amount of equipment bought by Iran on the black market through the Abdul Khan's network remains unknown. There is also the issue of potential parallel nuclear program carried out by the Army or the Revolutionary Guards. In addition, since the first revelations concerning the Iranian nuclear program in 2003, Iran has always hidden some elements while negotiating.

Extraits

[...] On February the members of the United Nations Security Council meet in London to discuss the possibility of further sanction against Iran, On March the United Nations Security Council members plus Germany agree on the imposition of sanctions, including on arm exports and on the $20 billions of export credits that Iran receives every year from European companies[4], but China and Russia oppose too strong sanctions, like a full economic embargo. It is also question to freeze the financial assets of more Iranians involved in the nuclear program[5]. The goal of such a resolution is to constrain Iran to negotiate by targeting the direct interests of its ruling elite. [...]

[...] The European banks have left the country, as well as the Japanese firms.The United States can therefore afford to begin real negotiations in a position of strength and not on an equal basis with Iran. Iran in Iraq: the over estimated player The overestimation of the Iranian, as well as of the Syrian role, can be seen in the attempts of engaging these two countries to end the civil war in Iraq, as we have seen with the Baghdad conference. The basic thought is that the regional problems will be solved with the Iranian help. [...]

[...] In addition, since the first revelations concerning the Iranian nuclear program in 2003, Iran has always hidden some elements while negotiating. The American position President Bush declared in February 2006, after the Security Council was called on the Iranian case: international community will not let Iran get nuclear weapons”[1], which repeats a similar statement made in 2003. The insistence of the international community to stop the Iranian nuclear program comes from the wish to stop the proliferation and not to see the Pakistani and Indian cases again. [...]

[...] On April 11, Iran announces it has successfully enriched uranium. On July 31, the United Nations Security Council approves a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its nuclear activities within one month or face economic and diplomatic sanctions. On the deadline, inspector report that Iran has failed to comply. On September 12, Iran announces its readiness to negotiate, but only if the United Nations sanction process ends. The United States and the European Union demand Iran to suspend its nuclear activity by October. [...]

[...] Indeed, American weapons cannot reach some of the Iranian facilities which can be up to 200 meters underground[17]. Limited strikes on nuclear facilities will be the beginning of a major war with Iran, given the retaliation threats of this country, including in Iraq. This country being currently governed by Shia parties with close links to Teheran, it can no longer be used in a balance of power configuration against Iran[18]. Iraq is even considered by Iran as its frontline state against the United States and its allies, especially if the United States decides to attack Iran's nuclear installations[19]. [...]