In the last set of articles I published on PolicyMic about Iran’s nuclear program, I argued that the threat of Teheran’s nuclear program is exaggerated. The precedents that exist in respect to U.S. nuclear policy towards China, India, and Pakistan suggest that a nuclear Iran can be accepted into the nuclear club, without major problems. I also highlighted the logic that if anything causes Iran to develop nuclear weapons, it will not be the internal dynamics of the regime, but the outright confrontational positions of the West, and by extension, Israel.
But what would a nuclear treaty between the U.S. and Iran look like? The U.S.-India nuclear treaty serves as a model. It suggests that Iran’s nascent nuclear program can very well be brought into adherence with international norms via mechanisms found in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran is a signatory. The U.S.-India model also suggests that Iran's nuclear program can be made more transparent and accountable through a bilateral treaty with Washington. Readers might consider the idea ludicrous, but hear me out.
The treaty between India and the U.S. is primarily focused on cooperation on the civilian aspects of nuclear technology. It contains provisions that recognize the freedom of each country to manage the military applications of its nuclear capabilities. It stipulates, however, that nuclear material and technology must be secured and efforts made to prevent their proliferation. The treaty has many practical aspects, including the transfer of knowledge, information, personnel and technology. This makes the U.S.–Indian nuclear relationship sustainable in the long-term.
Yes, it can be said that Iran will have the capacity to militarize nuclear technology. But it will only do so if pushed by external pressures, and I am afraid that this moment is near—the moment when Western pressure is going to become counterproductive. Israel, for instance, has a history of pre-emptive strikes in the Middle East on nuclear facilities, in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. A risk analysis based on that information means that it is very likely that Tel Aviv would be the first to lose its patience and order a coordinated strike on Iranian facilities.
To prevent the escalation of hostilities, now is the moment to set in stone a permanent U.S.-Iran nuclear treaty that is modeled on the one with India. Now is the moment to codify comprehensive horizontal and vertical cooperation on the civilian use of nuclear power initially, invoke Iran’s membership in the NPT, and procure guarantees that any military application of nuclear technology will be purely defensive vis-à-vis China’s nuclear doctrine, which is based on a minimum level of deterrent. However, there should be one important modification: Any military stockpile that Teheran creates must be subject to international monitoring, reporting, and visibility standards.
If Washington can engage India constructively on nuclear issues after 30 years of pretending New Delhi did not have nuclear technology, the same is possible with Iran. The benefits would be considerable, as Tel Aviv would be calmed and the Gulf allies would, on a larger scale, move China and Russia together towards one superpower consensus with the West. This would ultimately result in the alleviation of tensions and the normalization of Iran's nuclear program within the international system.
The point is that Israel, despite its military might, does not have the creative thinking needed to engage Iran constructively. The question is whether Washington, instead of readily aligning with Tel Aviv, has the diplomatic sophistication to solve the issue not only intelligently, but with style.
The Discussion
How would Israel creatively engage Iran when that country is dedicated to the destruction of Israel? Iran isn't even willing to sit in the same room with American negotiators, forget about Israeli ones.
Iran is a bitter strategic competitor of the US in the Middle East. No treaty is possible.
21 Replies
20 Replies
19 Replies
The flaw in your strategy: Iran is already a signatory of the NPT and it's violating the terms of that treaty. How does it make sense to negotiate another treaty with them, when they haven't even complied with the treaties that already exist? India was never a signatory to NPT, so a bilateral treaty for our sending the technology that Bush committed was essential. The second flaw in your logic is that the US will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It's bad enough that our interests in the ME have to be malleable RE nuclear Israel. We're not going to allow another country to get a nuclear weapon. And like the support for Libya, the Arab nations are just as oppossed to a nuclear Iran as is Israel and US.
5 Replies
4 Replies
2 Replies
The argument is built on a faulty premise that if we dealt with Iran as the US deals with allies, Iran would begin to act accordingly. Iran has shown no inclination to do so, it pursues aggressive rhetoric and is repressive of it's citizens. Iran believes Israel should be eliminated.
3 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies
One other issue-- it's inaccurate to blame the Israelis for lack of "creative thinking." Prior to Iran's nuclear program, Israel actually tried very hard to push the US away from Saddam in a pro-Iran direction. Besides the fact Saddam was a closer threat, Israel wanted to regain its relations with Iran and use it to balance against the Arab States. That's why Israel was a key played in the Iran-Contra affair.
Obviously they can't sign treaties with countries that refuse to grant them any diplomatic recognition. But Stuxnet and the assassination of Iranian scientists show they're thinking about more than just their Air Force.
8 Replies
7 Replies
6 Replies
Good article, but there's a big problem. Iran's not going to agree to a treaty that it knows will undermine its ability to develop nuclear weapons. Their goal is very clear at this point.
In fact, an agreement like this one was already proposed two years ago-- Russia offered to enrich uranium for Iran, so it could have an adequate supply without running its own centrifuges. Iran accepted and then suddenly backed down without giving a convincing explanation, even though the agreement would have fulfilled every possible peaceful nuclear goal.
Georgi,
I have found your entire series to be very thought provoking. For the process you outline to start, I believe Iran would first have to honestly open its entire program up to international inspection, nothing off limits. Will the Ayatollah be willing to do this?
1 Replies