Major powers differ on Iran nuclear dispute

ISN SECURITY WATCH (17/01/06) - Differences between world powers as to how to tackle the growing crisis over Iran’s nuclear program were exposed during an emergency meeting in London on Monday.

The EU-3 powers involved in recent negotiations with Iran - Britain, France and Germany - called for an emergency board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on 2 and 3 February, where Iran may be referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear program.

But although agreement was reached on the date, the US and EU-3 were unable to reach a consensus with Russia and China on the content or purpose of any referral, or on the role the UN should play in resolving the dispute.

"We remain in talks about what should be decided there and what the role of the United Nations should be," German Deputy Foreign Minister Gernot Erler said on Tuesday, referring to the IAEA meeting.

"That is a sign that we could not reach a full agreement on what the goal of the IAEA is through a resolution but that more time is needed," he said.

The crisis over Iran’s nuclear program escalated sharply last week when Iran removed UN seals at three nuclear facilities, ending a two-year suspension of uranium enrichment and nuclear research activities.

Western countries suspect the Islamic Republic is aiming to produce nuclear weapons; however Iran denies this, insisting its nuclear program is purely for energy production.

The five permanent UN Security Council members – the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China – must each agree on the UN referral for it to go ahead.

Russia, which signed a US$1 billion deal to build Iran's first atomic reactor at Bushehr, and China, which relies on Iranian oil, have so far been hesitant to take such a step.

Speaking after the London meeting of the five UN Security Council members and Germany, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the powers differed in their approaches to the situation.

“It [UN Security Council] is not being split on the issue of Iran but it’s not of one mind either,” he told Britain’s Channel 4 News.

Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that he might now support a referral.

Speaking in Moscow on Monday, Putin said Russia's position was now "very close" to that of Europe and the United States. However, he stressed that no "abrupt, mistaken steps" should be taken in tackling the crisis.

Iran has not yet rejected an offer for the country's nuclear enrichment to take place in Russia, he said. This deal would make it far more difficult for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Ahead of the talks, China appeared the most reluctant to go to the UN Security Council. "All relevant sides should remain restrained and stick to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue through negotiations,” Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said in a statement on Monday.

A British Foreign Office official confirmed to ISN Security Watch that China was hesitant and unsure of how to proceed, saying: “China is reluctant to turn this into a major confrontation at this stage.”

Agreement could be reached, the official said; it was simply a case of “finding the middle ground” and being sensitive to the concerns of all parties.

“If we had our way we would go smashing through this right now but that’s not going to happen,” he told ISN Security Watch on Tuesday.

What all parties were agreed on was the need to prevent Iran getting hold of a nuclear weapon, the official continued.

“We’re all arguing over the wording of resolutions, timing, details, etcetera, but the principle was signed up to last time around,” he said, referring to the IAEA meeting in September at which Iran was declared to be in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

European diplomats had begun the initial drafting of a resolution referring Iran to the UN, he confirmed.

Europe and the US also appear to be at odds over the possibility of a military resolution to the dispute.

Straw has consistently described military action as “inconceivable”. In contrast, the US is insistent on keeping the military option on the table, with both Democrat and Republican politicians backing President George W. Bush’s decision not to rule out the use of force.

Former British assistant chief of defense staff and Liberal Democrat Defense spokesperson Lord Timothy Garden said that although the US would prefer a non-military resolution, there was “a serious difference of perspective” between Britain and the US. There was a real danger of military action at some stage, he told ISN Security Watch.

China would almost certainly fall into line with the other powers, allowing the issue to be referred to the Security Council, he predicted. Some form of sanctions would likely be imposed, though “ultimately they won’t make any difference,” Garden said.

There would then be an international movement towards “some form of military action,” which would be “dubious” in military terms and would galvanize Iranian and wider Middle Eastern opinion against the west, he predicted.

“It’s not a very happy prospect,” Garden concluded.

(By Hannah Strange in London)