"Humiliations Are Bad for Diplomacy"
In its November 2008 report, the IAEA criticised the fact that despite a number of different UN sanctions, Iran has enriched about two tons of uranium since the resumption of nuclear activities at the facility in Natanz. Do these IAEA inspections and reports really tell us anything new?
Hans Blix: No. I don't believe that there is anything new to relate. The IAEA has spent a long time researching and seeking answers to questions that the Iranian government does not want to answer. Some of these questions concern sensitive military information that Teheran has absolutely no desire to answer. This is why I don't believe it makes much sense to conduct more inspections. The objective is to get Iran to lay its cards on the table. However, it is impossible to prove that there are no nuclear weapons in Iran. This is why Iran sees no reason to lay its cards on the table.
Maybe the inspectors hope to find hard evidence - a document, a letter, or something like that - that proves that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. However, because they haven't found anything of the sort, the search just goes on and on. I believe that the conflict cannot be solved by inspections, but by political negotiations.
Can we expect a change under the new US president, Obama?
Blix: The Iranian president congratulated Barack Obama on his election victory - that is something. I think it's a good sign. There is a feeling of hope that the two sides can now get talking again. After all, it is the USA that has said it will not talk to Iran until it halts its nuclear programme. If Iran were to yield, Rice has said that she would even be willing to travel to Iran herself. We are currently in a blockade situation that is going nowhere.
If one side pushes for a meeting, then demands can be made. However, the Iranians are not really all that interested in a meeting; it is the USA and the West that are afraid of the Iranian atomic programme. Obama is absolutely right when he says that it is ok to talk to your enemies. You don't have to agree with them in order to talk to them. This is why the Iranians hope that the new US administration will adopt a more conciliatory approach. Hillary Clinton has already threatened to destroy Iran if it attacks Israel with atomic weapons, but only in that case. Whatever happens, the talks will not be easy. But direct talks would be good.
The sanctions imposed by the West have not made Iran change course thus far. Could it be that sanctions are the wrong approach?
Blix: I never believed that sanctions would be successful - and certainly not military sanctions. On the contrary, I have always said that they would be a disaster and counter-productive. I consider incentives and rewards to be much more worthwhile.
And yet, the USA just cannot resist stationing aircraft carriers and cruise missiles in the Gulf and announcing that it is keeping all its options open - including military options. Personally speaking, I believe that is counter-productive. It only strengthens the position of the hardliners in Iran.
Teheran has already laid a few cards on the table. Maybe they should lay out a few more. And the USA should seek direct talks. As far as I am concerned, not talking to Iran is a humiliation - and humiliations are bad in international diplomacy.
Is the military option still even realistic?
Blix: I don't think it will really come to that. Not any more. The administration in Washington is deeply divided on this issue. There are hardliners like Dick Cheney who are in favour of using military force and there are the moderates who are in favour of dialogue. Now that Bush's days in office are numbered, there won't be any attack.
The moderates in Washington have achieved much: Condoleezza Rice was the one who made sure that the USA went along with other Western states such as the UK, Germany, and France in offering Iran trade incentives, membership of the WTO, and support for a civil nuclear programme in order to get Iran on board. Rice yielded and supported these policies. I think that was very good.
That is the political situation that Obama is inheriting. I believe that under his leadership, moderate steps will be taken towards diplomatic relations, not at presidential level, but at a much lower level. But there must be direct talks.
In June, Iranians will go to the polls to elect a new president. Do you think the election will change anything?
Blix: I am not an expert in Iran's domestic politics, but the country's economy is struggling, Ahmadinejad's policy did not work, and the price of oil is in free-fall. This all brings grist to his opponents' mill. Iranians are not per se anti-American; they are proud of their nuclear programme and don't want to be humiliated. Maybe Ahmadinejad will lose the election and somebody from the moderate camp will win. Until then, Germany, the UK, and the USA should make sure that their behaviour does not strengthen the hardliners in Iran.
Is the likelihood of a dialogue greater now?
Blix: The election is over; now is a good time. There is only one disadvantage to slow progress: Iran continues to enrich uranium and an increasing number of centrifuges are being installed. Nevertheless, I do believe that it would be wise to move closer to one another gradually, establishing contact at a low level and not jumping the gun.
Interview conducted by Thomas Latschan
© Deutsche Welle / Qantara.de 2008
Hans Martin Blix was director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1981 to 1997 and head of the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) from January 2000 to June 2003.
Translated from the German by Aingeal Flanagan
Qantara.de
Nuclear Conflict in Iran
Playing With Fire
The government in Tehran has plenty at stake in its game of cat and mouse with the International Atomic Energy Agengy. What are the political goals of Iran's delaying tactics in the dispute over its nuclear program? Bahman Nirumand reports
The Nuclear Conflict with Iran
Tehran's Game of Cat and Mouse Continues
In the mounting dispute with the West over its nuclear program, Iranian foreign policy has taken some confusing and contradictory twists and turns. Bahman Nirumand takes a look behind the scenes
The Obama Administration's Middle Eastern Policy
In Search of a New Strategic Imperative
According to the political scientist Thomas Jäger, a fundamental re-orientation of American policy on the Middle East under President Obama is highly unlikely. The key factor for the USA's activities in the Middle East will be whether American foreign policy receives a new framework for law and order beyond the "War on Terror"