As expected, talks on the Iran nuclear issue involving five
permanent UN Security Council members and Germany ended on Tuesday
in New York with no consensus.
This result once again shows the difficulties and complications
in resolving the Iranian nuclear standoff, and draws worldwide
attention to the issue between parties concerned.
The five-plus-one meeting was convened under a proposal by
Russia, in the hope of forming a "long-term strategy" on Iran's
nuclear issue.
From the standpoint of US-Iranian relations, the nuclear issue
can be considered an important moment for the United States to
pursue a final settlement of the Iran issue.
Strategic equilibrium and balance of interests underlie
Washington's great concern over Teheran.
Its feuds with the United States aside, Iran's geographical
position has also enhanced US concerns and propelled it to seek a
final settlement on the Iran issue.
Iran adjoins the Caspian Sea and Central Asia to the north, the
European Continent to the west, and the Persian Gulf to the south.
Little wonder the nation has long been called the "Eurasian
Bridge."
?
Because of this, it has long been the center of fierce struggles
between the world's major powers.
The birthplace of the Islamic Revolution, Iran also exerts
important influence on the Islam world.
More important, the country is of great strategic significance
in the world's energy landscape.
With 8.5 percent and 19 percent of the world's oil and gas
reserves, ranking fifth and second largest respectively, Iran is
indisputably an important energy resource base.
The United States is well aware of the vital importance of
energy to the development of a nation in the 21st century. It also
clearly realizes that whoever controls the world's energy will
control the entire earth.
With the knowledge hammered home that in the future developing
countries will become the main energy consumers, the United States
feels greater urgency to control the world's energy supplies.
Iran's strategic importance has made itself a point of
convergence of the interests of major powers. None of them will
easily concede their interests there, and is willing to see
developments by rivals as designed to deviate from their own
intentions.
The scramble for benefits among world's big powers is expected
to last long.
Besides caring about whether Iran will reverse its
long-cherished policy of peaceful nuclear utilization under huge
American pressure, the world is also concerned over whether
Washington will resort to military means to solve its disputes with
Teheran.
Iran's special geographical and energy positions will mean huge
repercussions in other regions in the event of military action.
Warfare is expected to re-map the Middle East political
landscape and inflict a dangerous blow on the world economy.
The United States has many times expressed its intention not to
rule out military means to solve Iran's nuclear issue. Teheran has
also offered no concessions by making active military preparations
for a possible military strike.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader of the Islamic
Revolution, claimed on March 14 that any concessions on the nuclear
issue will sabotage national independence and cause enormous losses
to Iran.
In a speech on international anti-terrorism delivered on March
20 in Ohio, US President George W. Bush once again accused Iran of
attempting to develop nuclear weapons, and said this was
unacceptable. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadineijad
counterattacked on the same day claiming no one can deprive his
country of the right to nuclear technology.
His words are thought provoking, an explicit message that Iran
is not only qualified for the right of peaceful nuclear use, but
has also developed nuclear technologies.
Iran's declared control of nuclear technology is undoubtedly an
important hint to the United States, who has long-suspected the
country of clandestinely developing nuclear weapons under the cover
of civilian projects, to come up with policies to solve the issue
of Iran as soon as possible.
Now the United States has two options.
The first one is to use any necessary means to solve this issue
to prevent Iran from becoming the next Democratic People's Republic
of Korea, whose announcement of possession of nuclear weapons was
almost equal to stripping the United States of choices other than
sitting down around the negotiating table.
The second one is to use diplomacy to solve the Iran issue.
According to information mastered by the United States, Iran can
make nuclear weapons at the earliest in 2010. At the same time, the
country has so far been thought incapable of posing threats to
American core national interests.
However, once it possesses nuclear weapons, Iran will
theoretically pose a key threat to the US core strategic interest.
Thus, the United States will by no means sit idle seeing a nation,
branded by itself as a "failed nation" and the "largest realistic
threat," enter the "nuclear club."
The Iran issue has plagued successive US presidents since the
two countries ceased diplomatic relations 26 years ago. In the eyes
of the United States, the former agent of its interests in the Gulf
has now become its largest enemy in this region.
It successively launched military actions in the Gulf,
Afghanistan and Iraq, tightening its encirclement ring around Iran,
the remaining strategic fortress in the Middle East that it expects
to seize as early as possible.
Nevertheless, diplomacy has so far made no tangible
progress.
Facing a defiant Iran, Washington has threatened on many
occasions to use all necessary means for a settlement, but attack
is still considered not to be the best option.
Despite a deadlock, all parties concerned are now trying to
pursue viable ways to resolve the issue. In particular, Russia and
China insist the nuclear issue be resolved within the framework of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) through peaceful
means and are actively working to this end. The European Union also
advocates settlement through diplomacy.
A peaceful solution seems in sight on the premise that parties
concerned make due concessions and admit Iran's right for peaceful
nuclear use and, in exchange, Iran promises not to apply nuclear
technology to military fields and agrees to develop civilian
nuclear technologies under the IAEA supervisions.
But this is not a prospect the United States looks forward
to.
The exposed divergences of this issue among main players and its
complicated nature suggest no instant solution can be found through
a few rounds of talks.
The author is a researcher with Jiangsu Provincial Academy of
Social Sciences.
(China Daily March 27, 2006)
