Tarja Cronberg: Solving the Iranian Nuclear Problem

Dr. Tarja Cronberg, member of the European parliament and chair of the European parliament Iran delegation, talks about the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs and prospects for a Middle East without weapons of mass destruction. The interview was conducted on the sidelines of international conference: “Russia and the European Union: partnership and its potential” organized by RIAC.

Were recent talks held in Kazakhstan over the Iranian nuclear program successful? What, in your opinion, were their main results?

I think they were successful in the sense that there was a positive atmosphere and some of the critical questions were opened for discussion, such asefficiencyof Western sanctions and the right of Iran to enrich uranium according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The latter has been the key question. And there was a certain progress inthis regard. On the other hand, the Iranians do not want to make concessions on uranium enrichment as long as they donot get something in return. We know what the sanctions were, but we do not know what the proposals were. Nevertheless, the fact that the sanctions were discussed isa sign of progress. In this sense, expectations are higher than before.

Concerning the sanctions,do you think they can help solving the Iranian nuclear problem? What is the probability that the situation will develop unfavorably and result in military intervention by either Israel or the US?

I think the sanctions should be regarded separately, as there aretwo kinds of sanctions. On one hand, there are targeted sanctions that are directed towards people who are involved in human rights violations or involved in the nuclear program, and on the other hand, there are general sanctions. The EU and the US are now hoping to apply general sanctions, which are not related to the nuclear program, but rather to oil exports and financial transfers. In my opinion, although these sanctions have affected the Iranian economy, they have also affected peoples’ everyday lives, especially those from the middle class: while the poor get subsidies and the rich become richer, the middle class is suffering. At the same time,I donot think that these sanctions have in any way affected Iranian nuclear program. On the contrary, there are more centrifuges and more uranium is being enriched. The Iranian nuclear policy hasnot changed due to the sanctions.

Arguably, there are only two things that have changed Iran’s behavior. The sanctions have possibly increased the eagerness of Iranians to negotiate; however this may be also the result of military threats. Secondly, the fact that today Iran is converting enriched uranium to reactor fuel, which would be very difficult to convert back into nuclear material, indicates that it is taking the Israeli red line seriously. I assume that everybody,or at least the Europeans and the Obama administration, want to avoid a military strike, so there is great pressure right now to achieve some sort of deal, conceived and approved by everybody, during the next negotiations,which may be held after the Iranian presidential election.

In other words there is optimism, and possibly military strikes will not happen. Obama and Netanyahu are still discussing theIranian problem, so I hope that they will strengthen the diplomatic approach, since military strikes are a threat that should be taken seriously and which is still on the table.

Ms. Cronberg, how probable, in your opinion, is the escalation of a political and diplomatic conflict on the Korean Peninsula? Can this situation lead to full-fledged nuclear war or at least a nuclear attack by North Korea?

I do not think it will result in a nuclear war; however it will probably escalate in the sense that the South Koreans have stated that they will also look towards nuclear weapons. Probably Japan will also consider an option of developing nuclear weapons; hence an arms race is likely to escalate. Therefore theriskof proliferation of nuclear weapons after the North Korean test is higher than it was before. This situation is very serious. A lot depends now on six-party negotiations and in my opinion, a decision should be made whether it is a serious threat or it is just a security concern. Thereis an opinion that today authoritarian governments believe that if you have nuclearweapons, you are not threatened by military strikes. No one is threatening North Korea today, while Israel is threatening Iran, which doesnot have nuclear weapons yet and is still a member of NPT. In my opinion, if six-party talks could persuade North Korea to enter the NPT as a non-nuclear nation, this would be the best outcome. However, it seems that North Koreans have other ambitions.

Is it possible, in your opinion, to achieve a goal of Middle East without weapons of mass destruction in the long run?

It is very difficult to see how this could be achieved. However, I do think it is the only choice. The problem is that if Iran gets nuclear weapons and if there is a military strike, then nuclear weapons will proliferate all throughout the Middle East. We will have a Middle East filled with nuclear weapons, which is not in Israel’s interests. Therefore I think Israel should look at the problem in a broader context, i.e. if not only at the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, but also looking at the Greater Middle East.

One of the problems in negotiations has been that Israel wants recognition of its state as a security guarantee, before it starts discussing nuclear weapons. The Arab countries on the contrary want to discuss nuclear weapons first. I think these discussions have to be carried out at the same time. It is a pity and a serious matter that the UN conference about nuclear weapons in Middle East, whichwas supposed to take place in Helsinki in December 2012, has been postponed. It is not a good sign and I hope the conference will eventually take place despite all the difficulties.

Interviewer: Nikolay Markotkin, RIAC program coordinator