“IAEA chief pushes for more talks with Iran”.
The head of the UN’s nuclear guardian has estimated that Iran could build a nuclear weapon within “three to eight years” — if it chose that path — and urged both sides in the international standoff with Iran to pursue negotiations.
Ever since the EU-3 (Germany, France and Great-Britain) started negotiations about Iran`s nuclear program pushing for “more talks” has become a running gag. Initially, the EU-3 wanted to show that the European way of dealing with conflicts is superior to the American approach. “Give diplomacy a chance!” was the slogan. That was back in 2003. Where are we now? Closer to the Iranian atomic bomb than ever.
How come? There is an interesting chronology of events at the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty website (Factbox: Timeline Of The Iranian Nuclear Dispute). Reading this you might understand why I stopped counting the deadlines.
Whenever Ahmadinejad ignored an ultimatum “more talks” were considered being the solution. And he kept on talking to us. He rejected a European offer of incentives saying this would be like swapping nuts and chocolate for gold. He told us Iran would not bow to threats and ultimatums. And just this Thursday he ruled out even a brief halt in his country’s nuclear program and referred to the Security Council’s resolutions as “having no influence.” That is quite outspoken.
Still, I do not want to be misunderstood here. I am not at all against negotiations. But if one deadline after the other expires and nothing happens, we are loosing our credibility and unnecessarily weakening our position.
Also, it must be quite clear that although a lot of things are negotiable, some are not. Human rights are not negotiable. And we are not going to discuss the question whether the Holocaust has taken place or not. Neither are we going to allow Israel being wiped off the map. This should be quite clear.
Former German Chancellor Schroeder asked to take the military option off the table. I think he was wrong. Leaving the military option on the table, is no war-mongering, but demonstrating that while the West is ready to negotiate, some things will never be negotiable. Human rights. Our way of life. The existence and safety of Israel and the Western world.
Looking at the timeline of the Iranian nuclear dispute I feel very much reminded of the “Theater of the Absurd”, in particular a play by Ionesco called “The Chairs”.
It is about an elderly couple, preparing chairs for a series of invisible guests who are coming to hear an orator reveal the old man’s discovery of the meaning of life. As the “guests” arrive, the two characters speak to them, and reminisce cryptically about their lives. Finally, the orator arrives to deliver his speech. Only problem: He is a deaf-mute.
In the program for the original production, Ionesco wrote, ‘‘As the world is incomprehensible to me, I am waiting for someone to explain it.’’
I feel very much the same. I am waiting for somebody to explain the meaning of these EU-3 talks to me. Were they well-meant, but badly carried out? Were Europeans too naïve? Is it simply absurd?
Or is it maybe completely different? Was the failure well-intended? Was Europe deliberately helping Iran to win time to advance it`s nuclear program? To ensure flourishing trade with Iran? And Israel`s fate just an unimportant detail of history? I hope I am wrong.
But what do you make out of this:
On April 21, 2007, representatives of the Austrian Oil Management Company (Oestereichische Mineralölverwaltung – OMV) and the Iranian regime signed three letters of intent regarding the biggest natural gas deal that a European company had ever concluded with Iran.
Matthias Kuentzel rightly asks the question: “Has Austria accepted the Mullah’s bomb?” and explains:
OMV and the Austrian state, which holds a 30% stake in the firm, have now broken with this international consensus. Instead of reinforcing the pressure to which the regime has been exposed, Vienna is filling the gap for Iran. Instead of making its approval of the OMV projects dependent upon a change in Iranian nuclear policy, Austria’s “grand coalition” is looking to be the first western government to come to terms with the Iranian bomb.
What Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik calls “merely a business matter” is in fact a diplomatic signal. Other European energy concerns are already in the starting blocks. They are flanked by politicians and policy experts who advocate a “common front” of Europe and radical Islam against the United States. Thus, in January 2006, Volker Perthes, one of the most influential advisors of the German Foreign Minister, proposed establishing a strategic alliance between the Mullahs and the EU by way of the Nabucco pipeline project. Representatives of the European Commission share the same conception. Thus Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs has expressly stated his support for OMV’s Iranian projects.
This does not look like “Theater of the Absurd”, but like unscrupulous, cynical and hypocritical Realpolitik. Shame on Europe.
Matthias Kuentzel rightly concludes:
If respect for the victims of the Holocaust still counts for anything in Austria and Germany, then any enterprise or bank doing business with the only country in the world that has made Holocaust denial a component of its foreign policy must be subject to public censure. If Austrian and German civil societies wish to make good on their claim to have learned the lessons of history, then they must exert pressure on their governments until they do what has to be done to prevent the Iranian bomb. If European governments do not act without delay to put massive pressure on Iran and confront it with the alternative of either changing course or suffering devastating economic consequences, the only choice that will remain for the West will be the choice between a bad option – the military option – and a dreadful one: the Iranian bomb.