Caught in the Diplomacy Trap

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,434781,00.html

By Ralf Beste

Iran refuses to stop enriching uranium. And the United Nations Security Council may not be strong enough to force the country into compliance. None of the options facing the West look terribly good. Unless the US suddenly becomes pragmatic.



REUTERS

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say he's not interested in building a nuclear weapon.

When German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier formally opens the conference of German ambassadors scheduled to take place in Berlin on Monday, the roughly 200 diplomats will have an excellent opportunity to brush up on the newest evaluations, analyses and conventions of German foreign policy. One issue, though, will dominate the conference: What to do next in the ongoing conflict over Iran's nuclear program?

The official tone will be established by Steinmeier and his most prominent guest, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy, in their opening speeches. But many a German ambassador attending the conference will have more illuminating insights to contribute. A number of the top diplomats haven't been in Germany for a year -- and they followed the Iran debate from a distance, through the eyes of their host countries.

And the conclusions drawn from their perspective will likely be more sober and skeptical than those of the German government.

First: There has been no substantial progress despite ever new offers by the West.

Second: Iran has become increasingly self-confident during the last three years and hardly feels compelled to give in.

Third: The view that Iran is the villain and that Western countries are forces for good is by no means one the entire world agrees with.

These conclusions are all the more bitter given that German and European diplomacy has achieved some genuine successes. Ever since the sensational November 2003 visit to Tehran by three foreign ministers -- France's Dominique de Villepin, Britain's Jack Straw and Germany's Joschka Fischer -- something like a unitary European policy towards Iran has in fact developed. The EU troika worked closely together to establish a political direction that the other 22 member states could agree on. This year, the team was even expanded to include representatives of the three superpowers long reluctant to participate -- China, Russia and the United States.

A diplomatic fix

Still, the new unity of the Group of Six hasn't led to much progress on the issue itself. The most recent ultimatum issued by the Group -- which resulted in a UN Security Council resolution at the end of July demanding that Iran cease uranium enrichment by the end of August -- has not impressed Iran.

Now, the Group of Six seems to be caught in a diplomatic fix of its own making. Just creating and maintaining cohesion within the group requires so much energy and so many concessions that the real goal -- exerting pressure on Iran -- is sometimes lost sight of. The motives of the six protagonists are too different for them to really become an intimidating force. It's like an All Star team -- superior to its opponent in terms of strength, technique and stamina, but much too self-obsessed to ultimately be effect.

On the one hand, there are the Americans. Only the Iraq catastrophe -- and the military and political damage sustained -- moved the US to negotiate with Iran in the first place. In May, US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered Iran economic cooperation in exchange for Tehran's agreement to give up its controversial uranium enrichment program. But the door to negotiations remains open only so long, and the time may have already run out. Hawks such as Vice President Dick Cheney can reasonably point out that the US's offer to negotiate has done little to move Iran so far. The case for confronting Iran -- with military means if necessary -- is winning converts in Washington. And it's not entirely clear that the US is interested in further diplomatic gymnastics.



Nor are the Europeans terribly impressive at the moment. They agree that they don't want a nuclear-armed Iran; they agree that they want to agree; and they agree they want to keep the three superpowers on board as well. But they don't quite seem to know how to do it. Europe looks helpless -- caught between the bellicose Americans on the one hand and the Russians and the Chinese -- both of which want to continue seemingly fruitless talks -- on the other.

Countries like Italy and Germany are likewise not terribly interested in imposing tough economic sanctions on Tehran -- never mind military strikes. They're much too economically bound up with Iran. What's more, the dominant view in most countries is that, while the actual danger posed by Iran may be greater than that posed by Iraq in 2003, it still hasn't risen to crisis status.

Solidarity with the West hardly a priority

That's all the more true for the Eastern superpowers China and Russia. Both governments have repeatedly -- and credibly -- stressed they don't want an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. But Moscow and Beijing interpret the threat posed by Iran very differently from Washington. The result is that Chinese and Russian diplomats don't believe there's any need to rush things -- they feel there's still time for talks. Solidarity with the West is anyway hardly a priority. Should the US lose face in its dealings with Iran, the old rivals in the East wouldn't shed a tear.

And Russia and China -- as veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council -- are in the position to torpedo any threat the West attempt to mount, provided the US and Europe continue operating within the world body. If they don't want sanctions, there won't be sanctions. And sanctions without the UN stamp of approval will not have the necessary legitimacy.

That's true of Germany too. Berlin would run into serious trouble were it to impose restrictions on German companies due to sanctions not legitimated by international law. German courts would likely not accept solidarity with the United States as valid legal argument.

The rest of the world would likely be even less interested in non-UN sanctions. In many parts of South America, Asia and Africa, the threat posed by Iran is thought to be much less serious than in Europe or North America -- and skepticism of American and European handling of the situation all the greater. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is even courting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While the Iranian leader's denial of the Holocaust may make him seem crazy in Germany, a good part of the world admires him for standing up to the Americans.

And Ahmadinejad is happy to take on the role. Those in Iran interested in good relations with the West, for reasons of economic interest as well as the conviction that it's in Iran's best interest, are losing ground in the current climate.

The task facing Western diplomacy is a tricky one, and the balance between confrontation and cooperation has to be re-defined in the coming weeks. Too much pressure and the Group of Six will break apart -- which would strengthen Ahmadinejad. Too little pressure would hurt Western credibility given the number of threats have been issued.

But perhaps the situation isn't delicate. Perhaps it would be enough merely to expand the package of incentives offered by the West to the point where it becomes irresistible. Only the US, of course, could make such an offer -- a kind of "Grand Bargain" with Tehran. In such a scenario, the US would recognize Iran as the hegemonic power in the Middle East and offer a guarantee that no armed invasion would be forthcoming. Iran's part of the bargain would consist of ending its proxy war against the United States and Israel and give up any plans of developing a nuclear weapon.

It would, 27 years after the occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran, be a radical shift for the US. But not unprecedented. At the beginning of the 1970s, China went from foe to friend in the space of a few months -- showing that US foreign policy can be very pragmatic when it really needs to.


_________________
"The conversion of the entire population to Islam and the extinction of every form of dissent is the ideal of the Muslim State - This is Islamic Peace"

A moderate Moslem is one who sends others blow themselves up.