You are here: Home » Press » 2009 » Press release Iran paper
Print this page

BICC-Publication on New Chances in the Nuclear Dispute with Iran

March 24, 2009

BICC (Bonn International Center for Conversion) presents a new publication, in which international experts have analyzed the nuclear dispute with Iran. What is to be expected from President Barack Obama? Which weight has got the nuclear program for the Iranian opposition? The Occasional Paper “New chances for a compromise in the nuclear dispute with Iran?” asks questions and gives policy advice.

The conflict around the Iranian nuclear program is still in an impasse. US President Barack Obama has not yet made public a change in the country’s Iran policy. “Exaggerations and demonization are no ingredients for a good policy. This BICC documentation with articles of international experts intends to contribute to making the discussion more objective and to pointing to ways out of the impasse,” states Peter J. Croll, Director of BICC, on the occasion of the launch of this new BICC publication “New chances for a compromise in the nuclear dispute with Iran?”

This new BICC publication contains revised and updated versions of contributions to an international conference, which BICC in cooperation with the Deutsche Welle held on 4 December 2008 in Bonn.

In his contribution, Former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Hans Blix (Stockholm) illustrates his opinion to stick to the goal of preventing any uranium enrichment in the Middle East. “I think that to set a precondition has been a mistake,” Hans Blix argues and demands new offers to Tehran from the United States: “In return for Iran not pursuing sensitive nuclear programs the United States could—as it does in the case of North Korea—offer guarantees against attack and attempted regime change and diplomatic relations.”

Dr. Ebrahim Yazdi, Secretary-General of the suppressed opposition party Freedom Movement of Iran (Tehran) shows in his contribution why for most Iranians the lack of democracy and the violation of human rights by the ruling forces is considered to be a greater danger than Iran’s nuclear program. He calls for a comprehensive and strategic dialogue and warns against negative consequences of sanctions against Iran. “These sanctions are actually hurting ordinary Iranians, not the authorities. Furthermore, the overall climate of confrontation created by US administrations provides excuses to Iranian authorities to put more pressure on political activists and is thus hurting the cause of democracy in Iran.”

Dr. James Walsh of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology invites the new US Administration to give up the unrealistic goal of zero-enrichment in Iran. As new target of negotiations, he suggests to transfer uranium enrichment activities in Iran to a multilateral consortium. “Multinationalization would reduce the chances that Iran will develop nuclear weapons.” He analyzes the new US policy that is to be expected towards Iran and pleads in favor of a real change, as “(t)he ‘steady as she goes’ approach may take us down a path that later results in military conflict, i.e. before Obama’s tenure is complete.”

Dr. Bernd W. Kubbig of the Hessian Foundation for Peace and Conflict Research (Hessische Stiftung für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, HSFK in Frankfurt) analyzed statements by Barack Obama on Iran before he was elected to be President. He concludes critically, “What is striking is that with the exception of exploring the option of a high-level dialogue with Iran, the elements of continuity are prevailing.”

BICC Research Associate Jerry Sommer (Dusseldorf), criticizes arguable ‘certainties’ as often put forward by politicians and the media, such as ‘Iran wants the bomb’, ‘Iran will wipe Israel off the map’ as one-sided and rash. “Exaggerated apocalyptic threat scenarios don’t help in making sound policy decisions.” In his view, new ‘red lines’ which focus on the international control of Iranian nuclear plants and a new fundamental approach are necessary. “A policy of détente towards Iran could probably yield much better results than a policy of confrontation and isolation.”


^ Top