Negotiations only way to prevent war

The new round of talks between Iran and six other countries, to be held at the weekend, are unlikely to result in any breakthroughs, as such talks have already been held several times since Iran's nuclear program was revealed in 2002 without any results being achieved.

The main problem is the West and Iran have different perceptions of the talks. To Western countries, especially the United States, negotiations are a means to change Iran's behavior not just gain concessions. But to Iran, the negotiations are way to get out of trouble. That's why it always agrees to negotiate when sanctions begin to bite or there is the risk of war.

In other words, both sides are using the talks as bargaining chips and both sides seem to cherish hopes that they will make some gains.

However, if this round of talks do not bear fruit, there are signs that both Israel and Iran are taking a stance that could end in war.

This has put huge pressure on the US.

The US frequently threatens Iran with military strikes but as they are unaffordable it prefers to use sanctions as its main weapon against Iran.

US President Barack Obama has pushed the harshest sanctions ever against Iran in the hope of forcing it back to the negotiating table as he does not want to be "dragged" into a war by Israel when he is facing both an economic recession and a forthcoming election.

However, after three months of this stick, Obama has reportedly offered a carrot by conveying the message to Iran that US will accept a civilian nuclear program in Iran if there is a guarantee it will never be used militarily.

Iran meanwhile is seeking an opportunity to ease tensions. Being militarily weaker, Iran will face huge losses and even a threat to survival if a war breaks out, and its economy, which relies heavily on oil exports, has already suffered much from the latest sanctions imposed by the US.

However, despite both countries hoping that they will get something from the talks, the core difference between them will prove difficult to bridge.

The West insists that Iran should give up its independent nuclear program, especially uranium enrichment, in exchange for external supplies to satisfy its civil needs for nuclear power. But Iran insists it has the right to peacefully develop nuclear power and do its own uranium enrichment.

In other words, the West wants to deprive Iran of the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, while Iran wants exactly the opposite.

Lack of mutual trust is another problem that will be difficult to overcome. Having regarded each other as an enemy for over 30 years, both the US and Iran find it hard to see any goodwill coming from the other.

The West blames Iran for dragging its feet on giving up its nuclear program, while Iran hates sanctions and the threats of war. They could not even agree on the location for the negotiations until just days before they were due to start.

And finally, both the US and Iran face domestic opposition that leaves them little room for maneuver: Obama is being widely criticized by Republicans and Jewish interest groups for being too weak on Iran; while the Iranian government gains its support by defying the US and not giving concessions to its long-standing enemy.

But even though the talks cannot be expected to achieve much, the international community should support the negotiations. The European Union, Russia, China and Turkey, have all devoted a great deal of effort toward finding a peaceful solution to Iran nuclear problem, and their primary goal now should be to keep the negotiations going.

After all, the negotiations will not guarantee peace, but without negotiations there will almost certainly be war.

The author is a researcher on Middle East studies at China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.

(China Daily 04/12/2012 page9)