A GLIMMER of hope that Iran’s confrontation with leading world powers over its nuclear programme can be resolved politically has emerged from the meeting between it and the US on Thursday in Geneva. The two sides are to meet again this month, an inspection team is to visit the newly disclosed nuclear enrichment plant in Qom and, potentially most important, Iran has indicated a willingness to negotiate an arrangement whereby already enriched fuel could be transferred to Russia for further processing to energy but not military levels.
After so much talk of sanctions and possible military action against Iran if it failed to comply with United Nations demands to freeze its nuclear programme these agreements represent a decided improvement. It is, of course, too soon to say whether they will be followed through satisfactorily. Such negotiations over the last six years have oscillated between engagement and reversal, to the point where Iran’s interlocutors are thoroughly frustrated with the lack of progress. In the meantime, its nuclear enrichment programme has steadily gone ahead. That it is entitled to generate its own nuclear energy is not disputed; but the intimate connection with the development of nuclear weapons transforms Iran’s systematic ambiguity and secrecy about its true intentions into a dangerous confrontation.
It is difficult to negotiate with a governing regime so divided between harder-and-softer line factions as Iran’s – all the more so after the democratic rebellion against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s victory in June’s presidential elections was put down so ruthlessly. Sanctions or military action would exacerbate those divisions, probably reinforce his hard line and hurt his opponents most. But Iran is surrounded by nuclear weapon states in Israel, Pakistan and India. The country requires nuclear energy in spite of its vast oil wealth. And its six major interlocutors are themselves divided over how to exert pressure. All this makes for highly fragmented negotiations badly in need of greater structure and purpose concerning a vital and strategic region.
President Barack Obama’s proposal to have a comprehensive negotiation with Iran was intended to address that problem. The direct meeting between senior US and Iranian representatives in Geneva was the first in 30 years, a welcome and historic encounter. Both states should now build on it to enhance confidence. Iran’s agreement to enrich nuclear fuel in Russia could reduce tension by removing it from military use for several years. In that time there could be wider political discussion about the region’s future, including on an Israel-Palestinian settlement, Afghanistan and Iraq.
That is the promise contained in this encounter. The alternative and regrettably more likely scenario would see such hopes dashed on a failure to deliver and premature calls for short deadlines and escalating sanctions. Building confidence takes time and trust. Mr Obama needs political support on that score – not least from Iranian leaders – but he also needs to listen carefully to the rest of the world which does not share the US presumption that Iran is perpetually obdurate.