Iran: American Diplomacy Incoherence

When it comes to its relations with Iran, the attitude of Obama’s administration is extremely ambiguous: on one hand the U.S. President took the opportunity on the Persian New Year (Nowruz) to speak of a potential dialogue between the U.S. and Iran. And on the other hand, American and British diplomats rose and walked out when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at the Non-Proliferation Treaty review meeting. Not a very diplomatic act.

One might wonder whether the Western diplomats could be a little more consistent with Iran: what would you prefer, dialogue or confrontation?

Would you like another example? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has asked Iran to demonstrate that the Bushehr reactor will not be used for military purposes, even though the U.S. State Department officials already know that the Bushehr reactor, whose construction began 40 years ago, cannot be used in any way for military purposes. Scientists and specialists have written a lot on the subject, explaining how the isotope produced cannot be turned into material for military purposes except through an extremely complicated process that would involve the plant’s closure. Something that would certainly lead to an inspection by the IAEA, the UN agency responsible for issues related to atomic energy.

So why does Hillary Clinton keep on accusing Iran? How can the diplomats be asked to do their job when there is so much ambiguity?
Another question: has Iran really violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty? The IAEA has never said so. The matter is complex, so I asked Michael Gaietta, a PhD student at the Catholic University of Milan, who has been working for years on this issue.

According Gaietta it is hard to say that Iran has violated the NPT. The latest IAEA report of February 10, 2010 states that: “While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”

“The first part of the sentence,” said Gaietta, “refers to the lack of fissile material diversion for military purposes in Iran, which means that the NPT grounding obligations have not been violated because the treaty focuses primarily on fissile material.”

Despite this, as it stands out from the document, Iran has not provided the necessary and useful cooperation to the IAEA (information and tools to implement additional control) in order to establish, without doubt, the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. Furthermore, the Islamic republic has not fulfilled certain obligations agreed in the Safeguards Agreements made with the IAEA, and other monitoring tools associated with them (Subsidiary Arrangements).

Summing up, the alleged violation of the NPT interpreted from evidence of military diversion from a civilian nuclear program cannot subsist. "The violation concerns the instruments of control but I do not think,” Gaietta concludes, “it is sufficient to say that Iran has violated the treaty, according to the definition of fissile material in the NPT, with which it was built.”

Therefore, it seems there are good reasons to continue working through diplomacy, but without too much ambiguity.


Farian Sabahi, a professor at the University of Turin and specialized journalist, writes for Sole24ore, Io Donna and Vanity Fair. She collaborates with several foreign and local radio stations. For Bruno Mondadori, she wrote “History of Iran” (from 1892 to present).