Iranian scenarios

Yesterday the Supreme National Security Council of Iran confirmed information on the continuation of negotiations between Tehran and international mediators on the nuclear program on April 14th.

The West demands that Iran ceases its enrichment of uranium, which could be used for development of nuclear armament.

Tehran insists on peaceful character of the program.

Moscow supports the continuation of negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. At the same time, Russian experts (especially military experts and diplomats) have different views on the situation.

Leonid Ivashov, member of the Russian Writers Guild, MSUFA professor, military and social activist

Today we have to consider the Iranian problem within the formation of a powerful threat to our security. We, military analysts, come to the conclusion that the threat (of a military strike on Iran) would damage China and Europe, but the worst consequences would be experienced by us. Let’s imagine what happens if a war breaks out; what a pro-American regime in Iran and the military presence of NATO would bring. We should understand that preparation for powerful military aggression with use of nuclear armaments is going on. If Israel strikes first, the USA joins, and in case they do not achieve success quickly, the Americans and Netanyahu are preparing social opinion for using nuclear armaments.

Leonid Kalashnikov, Senior Deputy Chairman of the International Committee of the State Duma

What can Russia do? On the one hand, it is making regional attempts; on the other hand, we should provide society with information about the IAEA's role, which is, unfortunately, negative today. Previously, even under the pro-American chairman El-Baradei the IAEA made a report which said that Iran had fulfilled all the requirements of the NPT and that its activity in the nuclear sphere doesn’t violate international treaties. Later, Amano was appointed to this position and the Wikileaks disclosure happened, and it appeared that Amano wasn’t the favorite candidate for the position, so he began to claim that he would provide a different policy from El-Baradei’s, i.e. he would fire some undesirable members of the IAEA commission, which is what is happening today. At the moment, the IAEA, which demands additional penalties from Iran, is going beyond the limits defined by the UN for this organization. In this sphere Russia should emphasize such things clearly.

Alexander Sadovnikov, ambassador-at-large of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, former ambassador of Russia to Iran

The problem, despite its seeming simplicity, is to define the efforts of the West to make Iran surrender and agree on imposed conditions in terms of a contradiction between Iran and the West. In our diplomatic efforts we try to proceed from our national interests and consider a series of involved factors. We cannot speak about one-sided sanctions or ignoring them, because one-sided sanctions touch upon us, and non-fulfillment of some conditions puts our interests at risk, interests of our major companies, businesses and economy. There are objective realities and we have to allow some steps that enable us to avoid threats which appear, in case of a direct reaction. Russia presents itself as the world power; its voice is louder and stronger, and we should use all methods. The diplomatic path, the "six", despite little effectiveness of the work in this format, is one of the instruments which enables us to reduce the tension surrounding Iran, which has appeared for various reasons. It can be understood, but the Executive Council of the IAEA has to overcome the direct unwillingness to see real facts presented by many countries. The majority of these countries believe that Iran is not open and sincere in all issues, sometimes it doesn’t act as a partner interested in settlement of the problem. Yes, Iran clearly defines its legal rights, and we support it. One evidence that our support is effective is the fact that, several years ago, the West didn’t want to hear about Iran’s rights to the “peaceful atom” and a nuclear program at all, but today it is accepted a priori. Influenced by the West, the Council wanted to adopt the resolution, but we managed to stop these efforts at the session of the IAEA Council, as negotiations continued. Talks within “the six” format scheduled for next week could start driving towards some mutual understanding of ways out of the problem. Of course, the sincerity of the sides is important – whether the West wants to settle the problem peacefully or not. I cite you the statement by Clinton made two days ago in Istanbul: “The USA welcomes the statement by the Iranian authorities about the fact that a nuclear weapon contradicts Islam and Tehran isn’t developing one. If the Iranians share this view, they should be open and convince the international community that it is not an abstract position, but state policy.” But at the same time, they want to see “certain steps by Iran proving the position.” There are mismatches. Even the monitoring visit by the deputy general director of the IAEA to Iran… There were mismatches and misunderstandings, and even unwillingness of both sides to make the visit effective. However, the doors are not closed; there are ways for normalizing the situation surrounding Iran. For example, the situation in Syria seemed to be leading to a military conflict, a disastrous scenario – but still some diplomatic decisions delay it. I’m sure that the West, despite its unwillingness to accept the idea of Iran’s rejection of nuclear armaments, as Iran has stated several times. Statements that it contradicts Islam and is needless for Iran have been being made for several years. Ahmadinejad said that they couldn’t use it, and stated: “Did nuclear armaments help the Soviet Union? It collapsed, despite possessing nuclear weapons.” Of course, these reasons are undesirable for some forces. I think we can make progress due to our efforts within “the six,” as we play an important role there. I don’t say the format is very productive or has a great future, but at the moment it could play a key role in postponing any conflict, which would lead to catastrophic consequences for the Middle East.

Alexei Pushkov, journalist, TY anchor, political scientist, MSUFA professor

What can be offered to Iran? It is a serious question. I think we could initiate a program. Because what does it mean “reject”? Did you reject Iraq’s occupation? Did you reject support for the military opposition in Syria? Did you reject the military air campaign against Gaddafi’s troops and bombing Tripoli? The USA do not reject anything. They reject only if they have to do so. Is the USA the only international judge, which dictates its requirements to everyone? Or is it a country which has to fulfil certain duties too? Or will we proceed from the logics of Norman Podgorez, one of the prominent American neo-conservatives, who said: “I wake up every morning and pray to God that we begin to bomb Iran.” Even though we are being persuaded that Obama is not Bush, sometimes it seems he is Bush. Yes, there is some difference, but on the whole we come to one conclusion. And we should develop a program, a basis for an agreement with Iran, because you cannot simply tell them “reject.”

Leonid Kalashnikov, Senior Deputy Chairman of the International Committee of the State Duma

The Islamic factor of possessing a nuclear weapon is very important for the USA; they treated North Korea very mildly. If we remember recent history lessons, Gaddafi was close to possessing a nuclear weapon. He had a very simple way: he decided to buy nuclear technologies from another Muslim state – Pakistan. And it purchased some of the technologies, and a Pakistani nuclear weapons' pioneer was caught. The story was covered up after Gaddafi rejected nuclear weapons and stated so publicly. We remember what the result of that was. The current wars in the Arab East prove that countries see guarantees of security only in having a nuclear weapon.

Alexander Isaev, deputy head of the Economic Strategies Institute of the RAS

We should gradually withdraw sanctions against Iran; at the same time, we should make it become open in the sphere of its nuclear program. Iran is a developing country with huge potential. It intends to have modern technologies in many spheres. And we could help them in it, for example, sharing biological technologies, technologies in airplane construction and transport. This path is possible.

Yelena Dunayeva, expert of the Oriental Studies Institute of the RSA

The accent should focus on making Iran express its position actively, first of all, at coming talks. There is a crisis in Iranian political establishment. There are various forces and approaches. Contradictions between legal and executive powers and existence of the Supreme Leader, who makes decisions and tries to balance the situation in the country, prevent making decisions inside Iran. Probably soft-conservative circles, which dominate in the parliament today, and radical nationalist forces, presented in the parliament by Ahmadinejad, - each of the forces is probably ready to make certain tactical steps in the sphere of reaching an agreement with mediators. I don’t mean global compromises, but ways to agreement, transparency in relations with the IAEA.

Ideas on extension of the circle of mediators are expressed, on more active attraction of countries of South Europe (Spain, Italy, Greece), which have relations with Iran in the context of an almost complete absence of political relations with most European states. Extension is possible by means of BRICS countries and Turkey. But a constant fight for power prevents both forces of Iranian top from making certain steps.

They prevent each other from any initiatives. The situation will remain by spring of 2013, when the presidential elections will take place, as the recent parliamentary elections haven’t brought changes in the internal political structure in the country. There is no balance. It is the first moment.

The second moment is that more threats will sound, the more consolidated the Iranian society will become. Even these two forces (in fact there are more than two) might consolidate in case of mental and military pressure on Iran.

There are no conditions for “color revolution” in the Iranian society. After events 2009 the protest movement was destroyed. The majority of population supports the Islamic republic, Islamic values and the Supreme Leader. Probably differences of views on the role of the Supreme Leader in the country’s future exist, but there is no organizing force, which could head a revolution in Iran from inside.

All internal opposition forces have broken relations with foreign opposition forces in the USA and GB. And due to it they were managed to remain in the internal political arena of the country.

In 2003 under the reformer-president Khatami Iran agreed on signing the additional protocol of the NPT, but the protocol wasn’t adopted by the parliament, as conservatives prevailed in the parliament. The Iranians are sure that disapproval of the additional protocol of the NPT by the parliament took place, because the Europeans didn’t sign the protocol themselves. Thus, mistrust to probable initiatives by 5+1 remains.

As for relations with Russia, Iran cooperates with us, but in general the Iranian society has negative attitude to Russia. Even the majority of conservative forces treat Russia carefully and suspiciously. Today they consider us as the only chance to find a way out of the situation; but there are some people in the Iranian government, who support the idea of strategic partnership. After cooling of relations in 2010, today the political dialogue between Russia and Iran intensifies. Russia should consider the process reasonably. The strategic partnership is only a way to say that “the US is our paramount enemy” for Iran.

Leonid Ivashov, member of the Russian Writers Guild, MSUFA professor, military and social activist

Iran underestimates the military threat. They concern about their image of an independent, strong, important state. And the Iranians do have a right for sovereign foreign policy and independence, but I feel that they repeat the Iraqi mistake. Saddam Hussein indicated that he had weapon of mass destruction and played up to the groups in the US, which were established foe studying the Iraqi threat. They filtered information. Information that confirmed the threat was presented to President Bush; information that didn’t confirm the threat wasn’t presented to Bush. It is known that Saddam Hussein played up to the campaign against him. He thought four-flashing would save him. Could the Iraqi paradox happen in the situation with Iran? In reality Iran is far away from nuclear weapon. But it seems that it is very close to it. Probably there is a serious miscount in fight for right for possessing nuclear energy. Today many are talking about Iranian nuclear weapon as an accomplished fact. Is it so? The Iranians do not give clear answer to the question.

Iran has its own reservations in the sphere; they could bring to light many aspects. They underestimate anti-Iranian potential of the countries supporting the military settlement of the problem. However, these countries don’t understand where the military settlement will lead, but certain scenarios are being considered. I think Iran should treat it seriously and remember the Iraq example.