Iran Kills Russian Nuclear Compromise Proposal

Since 03-14-06

By Sergei Blagov and Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com Correspondents
March 13, 2006

Moscow (CNSNews.com) - As U.N. Security Council members continue deliberating what to do about Iran's nuclear program, Tehran has killed any hopes that it might agree to a deal with Russia that could have resolved the standoff.

"The Russian proposal is not on our agenda any more," Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a briefing. "Circumstances have changed."

A senior Russian lawmaker responded by saying that Iran's stance may "radicalize" the debate in the Security Council, where talks were continuing on Monday, after two meetings last week to consider a draft statement on Iran.

Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the parliamentary international affairs committee, said Iran's decision spelled the end of chances for a compromise. Any remaining confidence in Tehran's intentions had been "seriously undermined."

The U.S. and its European allies had given cautious support to Moscow's proposal to allow Iran to enrich uranium at a facility based in Russia.

The idea was aimed at allaying international concerns that Iran was using its ostensibly civilian nuclear energy program to secretly develop the capability to build atomic weapons. Enriching uranium produces fuel that can be used for both civilian and military applications.

Not only has Iran now shut the Russian compromise avenue, it also hinted that it may consider withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the treaty under which Iran claims its right to produce nuclear fuel by enriching uranium.

"If we reach a point that the existing rules don't meet the right of the Iranian nation, the Islamic Republic of Iran may reconsider policies," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said at the weekend.

North Korea is the only country to have pulled out of the NPT, a step it took in early 2003. Two years later it declared itself a nuclear weapons power, although it has yet to test a bomb.

The Security Council, which failed to act against North Korea at the time because China and Russia opposed tough measures, is now faced with the decision of what to do about Iran.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), last week referred the Iranian dossier to the council, which is empowered to take steps including sanctions.

"We are not afraid of the Security Council," Asefi said. "What is important for us is defending our legitimate rights. Iran is a powerful country and is able to defend its interests."

He also said Iran would wait several days -- presumably until the council position becomes known -- before deciding what to do about moving to large-scale enrichment. Iran is currently known to be carrying out smaller-scale enrichment for research, which it resumed last month after a two-year negotiated freeze.

Exactly how Iran intends to "defend its interests" remains unclear. One senior government minister said earlier the country -- OPEC's second-largest oil producer -- could use oil as a lever.

But Mottaki was quoted Sunday as saying Iran "will not use oil as a foreign policy instrument."

Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, told U.S. lawmakers last week that Iran had to be persuaded that the cost of having nuclear weapons would be higher than any benefit.

The Security Council should impose sanctions on military, nuclear and dual-use items, he told the House International Relations Committee.

The U.S. would want to incrementally ratchet up the pressure while retaining international support. While this was a sound strategy, "the process must not drag out to the point where Iran is most of the way to the bomb before sanctions can begin to bite."

Milhollin said sanctions would be costly not just for Iran but also for its partners Russia and China. "The entire world could see higher energy prices."

But the cost of inaction could not be quantified.

"Who can tell if a conflict between Iran and some other country might cause nuclear threats - or even nuclear weapons - to fly back and forth?" he asked.

"Who can tell whether Iran might supply a bomb or the means to make one to a terrorist group? And who can tell what would happen to Iran's arsenal if its unpopular government falls, as it surely will one day?"