From the Chat Room
An Interview with John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations.
Mahtab Farid – Washington Prism
US - Iran relations has been an important topic of discussion since the Islamic Republic took hold of a popular uprising almost 3 decades ago.
Numerous books have been written about Iran and a number of conferences have taken place on how to approach that country. Some experts feel that the United States should engage in an unconditional dialogue with Iran offering the so-called “grand bargain”. Others believe that the United States shouldn't talk to a regime that supports international terrorism. Some in the current administration feel that behavioral change and not a regime change is the answer.
Under the current administration, the United States has engaged in a number of talks with Iran regarding the security of Iraq and Afghanistan.
With an eye on the upcoming presidential elections in the US, Washington Prism will conduct a series of interviews with experts, officials, and policy makers on how to deal with Iran.
The first interview is with John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations who is currently a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Q. You drafted two UN Security Council resolutions, 1737 and 1747, to stop Tehran from enriching uranium. Could you briefly tell us what those resolutions were and were they effective?
JB. There are now a total of three resolutions that are intended to address Iran’s uranium enrichment program and they build on a series of resolutions from the International Atomic Energy Agency which transferred responsibility for the issues to the Security Council several years ago.
The main concern is that Iran has never made full disclosure of what its activities are in the course of years of work on the nuclear program, it has concealed data from IAEA, it has provided false data to IAEA and other countries are worried that its intentions are not peaceful.
Unfortunately Iran has defied the Security Council, has refused the suspension of the uranium enrichment program and accordingly the Security Council has imposed economic sanctions on Iran.
But these are weak sanctions and Iran continues to expand its nuclear activity and leaving the decision on whether or when to actually weaponize its nuclear capability entirely in its own hands.
Q. A large portion of Iran’s economy is based on oil and the development of its oil industry is already sanctioned so why is the United States trying to persuade other members of the Security Council to draft a third resolution? Iran has repeatedly stated that it will not stop its uranium enrichment.
JB. I think that the Security Council resolution currently under consideration, even if it is adapted will not have the desired effect in persuading Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program.
I think that the Security Council, as long as Russia and China provide cover for Iran, the Security Council is not going to succeed in imposing sufficiently strong economic sanctions that will change Iran’s behavior.
So although United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany say they are committed to the peaceful resolution of the issue a diplomatic approach which has been under way for five years now, I think is doomed to failure.
Q. Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to the United Nations and former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan has said that there is no question that an unintended consequence of U.S. decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq has strengthened Iran's position in the Middle East, do you agree with that?
JB. I think the Islamic Revolution should be grateful to the United States for having removed two of the greatest threats that they faced. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
I think that Iran’s course though was set long before that in both pursuing nuclear weapons and in support for international terrorism. I think this is a course that will inevitably be in a collision course for Iran unless it changes its policy, I don’t think the current regime is going to do that.
I am hoping that the Iranians themselves will find a way to put a new regime in power to give the possibility for average Iranians to have a say in their own government. Unfortunately that is the only alternative I see at the moment to the continued growth of Iranian influence.
|
|
Share This
|
email
