Bullying won’t work with Iran, says Swiss expert

Undated picture of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran Keystone

A former top official at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Bruno Pellaud, says the West will have to change its strategy to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

In articles published in Monday’s newspapers, Pellaud says avoiding confrontation and building confidence is the only way progress will be made with Teheran.

Pellaud, former deputy director-general of the IAEA, was writing with Tim Guldimann, former Swiss ambassador to Teheran. Switzerland represents United States interests in Iran.

No sooner had Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad been confirmed as Iran’s new president than the US was denouncing him as a “no friend of democracy… no friend of freedom”.

Those words, by US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, confirmed Washington’s view that Ahmadi-Nejad is a hardline fundamentalist. There were also suggestions that Washington would now be satisfied only with a complete freeze on all uranium enrichment in Iran.

But Pellaud and Guldimann say such an approach could persuade Iran to stop “cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) altogether, and to move to a clandestine nuclear programme free from international controls”.

For its part, the European Union repeated its intention to press ahead with talks with Iran next month, as planned.

Pellaud and Guldimann say the most prudent course of action would be for the European Union to strike an agreement with Iran, restraining its nuclear activities in exchange for technological support and cooperation.

The US and IAEA should support this position, and Iran should agree to full transparency, they added.

swissinfo: You have called on the US and Europe to avoid confrontation and build confidence with Iran. Is that likely, following the comments we’ve heard since the election of Ahmadi-Nejad?

Bruno Pellaud: I don’t think it is today. Tim Guldimann and I decided to go ahead with this suggestion after we heard the election result because I think there is a reality here, which everyone will have to deal with.

The outlines of a deal have been in the air for some time but the Europeans – with the US behind them – are not too keen to show any sign of weakness. However, the current stalemate is just impossible and we don’t think it is in the interests of the West to break off negotiations with Iran by insisting on a complete abandonment of enrichment activities.

swissinfo: Would Iran be willing to accept such a deal?

B.P.: I’m not too impressed by what the new president has been saying [although] he has still managed to keep all kinds of options open. There is nothing new.

I like the fact that he is an engineer – being one myself – which means that he will be a problem-solver first, before being an idealist in the Islamic faith. And he will have to deal with the realities. And I think the realities have not changed for Iran, and not for Europe either.

swissinfo: So somebody needs to give some ground. Can we expect the Iranians to do so?

B.P.: If Iran was pushed into a corner, it may well decide to break off its relationship with the IAEA. Then there would be no more verification about what Teheran is doing. That would be very disturbing.

This proposal is not just something from Tim Guldimann and I. There have been extensive discussions involving diplomats and scientists, including American scientists.

And we made the assessment that it was better to let the Iranians go ahead with a limited number of centrifuges. There would be a very limited risk associated with such a small number, rather than force them into a situation where they would break off their relations with IAEA.

It’s a matter of saving face for the Iranians. Everyone has the impression that this nuclear programme started under the Ayatollah, under the mullahs. Actually, nuclear energy started in Iran in 1959, when the Shah bought his first American research reactors. So there was already a nuclear establishment in Iran before the mullahs came to power.

That’s why Iran is adamant that it will not be denied a technology that countries like Brazil and Japan can have without being bothered by the international community.

swissinfo: Is Iran intent on building a nuclear bomb?

B.P.: My impression is not. The IAEA says there is no evidence of a weapons programme. Is this naiveté?

My view is based on the fact that Iran took a major gamble in December 2003 by allowing a much more intrusive capability to the IAEA. If Iran had had a military programme they would not have allowed the IAEA to come under this additional protocol. They did not have to.

It is true that Iran has tried to hide certain things. Some people – the Americans and some Europeans – say that Iran in that case has to be completely denied the right to enrich uranium.

I think Iran would be ready to negotiate because it wants to join the World Trade Organization, it wants to develop trade with Europe. Even the new president said they need investment and international involvement.

swissinfo-interview: Jonas Hughes

Key facts

The suggestions were published in the Monday editions of the Swiss daily, Le Temps, the Financial Times, Le Monde and the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspapers.
The EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said negotiations with Iran would continue despite the election of a hardline fundamentalist, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad.
Germany, France and Britain as well as the US insist Teheran gives up its uranium enrichment programme, – a demand rejected by Iran.

In brief

Pellaud and Guldimann have called for a two-phased approach to build confidence between Iran and the West in a row over Teheran’s nuclear ambitions.

In a first stage, Iran should be allowed a limited uranium enrichment programme under international supervision.

After five years, the EU could provide technological support and cooperation and step up trade relations.