Former ambassador speaks on nuclear Iran

Former U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering spoke about the need for diplomacy in addressing Iran’s growing nuclear capabilities to a full audience in Robertson Hall on Monday night. The public lecture was titled “Iran’s Nuclear Program: Can Diplomacy Help?” and was co-sponsored by the Wilson School’s Program on Science and Global Security.

One of the most difficult challenges for U.S. foreign policy lies in its relationship with Iran and, in particular, the development of the Islamic nation’s nuclear program, Pickering said.

Noting that Iran’s language, culture and national pride are very different from that of the United States, Pickering said that these differences and estranged relations have led Iranians and Americans to feel “suspicion, uncertainty and certainly a sense of mistrust.”

The Middle Eastern nation ran into many difficulties as it attempted to develop its nuclear program. Throughout its growth, the U.S. stance has been that “Iran should not develop any nuclear capacity, [a view] in part predicated on the notion that we had estranged and difficult relations with Iranian leadership,” Pickering said. From the United States’ point of view, allowing Iran to develop a nuclear program would enable it to make nuclear weapons with which it could menace American allies in the Middle East and endanger the world community.

Iran contracted with Russia for the construction of a power generator on the Persian Gulf and over the years built a centrifuge for the purposes of refining uranium. Though Iran is part of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Pickering said that it had taken technological steps toward nuclear energy that increased American and European anxiety.

Efforts to slow down — or “sabotage,” Pickering said — the Iranian nuclear program with international sanctions and the computer worm Stuxnet have succeeded, but “while we may have bought some time in the Iranian program, that is not endless.”

The country’s extreme secrecy, construction of underground facilities and purported computer designs for nuclear warheads have shown that “Iran’s intentions were not as benign as the Iranians claim,” Pickering explained.

European nations and the United States have begun to consider negotiations with the Middle Eastern power, realizing that a policy of forbidding Iranian nuclear development is not likely to be accepted by Iran, which wishes to assert its autonomy. Because the Iranian centrifuge has become “an irreversible symbol of national achievement,” Western nations will probably need to give up their hope for a nuclear hiatus and agree to some nuclear development in exchange for restrictions and international oversight.

In light of these developments, three policy options remain for the United States, Pickering said.

The first is to allow Iran to develop its nuclear program without hindrance, though Pickering noted that this would not be a “wise” move for American foreign policy. If Iran began to make nuclear weapons, other Arab states could rush to develop their own nuclear programs to counteract the military threat, he said.

A second, dangerous option lies in military action. One difficulty with this approach is that so little information exists regarding Iran’s internal goings-on and infrastructure that an invasion by land would be incredibly risky — not to mention unpopular with the American public.

Lastly, improved diplomacy could provide some hope for progress. The United States should be prepared to put all sensitive issues on the table in its talks with Iran, including nuclear development, Pickering said. He added that the United States should also accept Iran’s right to produce uranium at levels consistent with civilian needs in exchange for Iranian transparency and agreements to allow international inspections of nuclear facilities.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Restrictions on military enrichment for all nuclear powers — including the United States — might facilitate an agreement with Iran, Pickering said. The United Nations Security Council could serve as one venue for legislative changes in the way all nations approach uranium enrichment.

Small, “confidence-building measures” might also improve international relations by altering the prevailing Iranian view that the United States wants to change the Iranian regime, he said. A “hotline” between Tehran and Washington, as well as basic agreements for naval engagement, might minimize misperception and crisis situations.

These small steps might lead to a thawing in relations, but the ambassador isn’t betting that considerable improvements will be made anytime soon. “It is important to begin to open the door,” Pickering said. “I see a role for diplomacy, but it is a difficult one.”