CAIRO: In a brief visit to Egypt last week, U.S. Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Robert Joseph further rallied Egypt s support for American efforts to end Iran s nuclear program.
Egypt s announcement that it won’t accept another nuclear power in the region is not the first along the same lines. Last February, Egypt voted in favor of moving Iran s file to the Security Council. This came after the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found Iran in non-compliance of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) it had previously signed.
Joseph said that he had made this visit to discuss important strategic issues, in addition to discussing the issue that Iran is moving forward with its nuclear weapons program and the need to work together to stop Iran from getting the capability and acquiring a nuclear weapon.
But rallying Egypt’s support in the matter, taking into consideration the minimum level of communication between the two countries, has evoked many questions on the effectiveness of Egypt s role.
Egypt can do very little, says Dr. Mohamed El Sayed Said, deputy director of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. He explains that the country doesn t have much influence on the Arab countries in West Africa, and that the Gulf is already opposed to Iran s nuclear program for a variety of reasons.
Other than talking to Arab countries or waging local campaigns to rally popular support against Iran s nuclear program, Said doesn t see other roles that Egypt could play.
Joseph stressed, however, that Egypt has a leadership role to play . I think Egypt can help build support with many other governments. Egypt can play an important role in Vienna [IAEA headquarters].
This isn t the first time that the Iranian issue has been the topic of Egyptian-American talks. Said points to Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney’s previous visits in which the issue was brought up.
However, Joseph s position might imply that these talks have more specific objectives, Said notes; it s not simply for general rallying, he suggests.
Iran recently announced that it has succeeded in enriching uranium at its Natanz nuclear facility, progress that has alarmed several countries, including the United States. Iran had first announced its intention to resume its enriching program in August 2005; the IAEA found it in violation of the NPT.
In January 2006, the situation further escalated when Iran broke the IAEA seals on its Natanz nuclear research facility. The next month the Iranian file was referred to the Security Council.
We are doing everything we can to make diplomacy work, Joseph said in reference to U.S. efforts to stop the Iranian nuclear program. We all want to have a peaceful resolution of this issue. We believe that the best way of reinforcing diplomacy is by making very clear through actions that we are committed.
Besides supporting the European Union and the IAEA s efforts in the matter, Joseph explained the United States has played a leadership role in getting the IAEA board to find Iran in non-compliance and has worked very hard to send the Iranian file to the security council with voting from major countries in the region.
He also noted that the United States would take stronger action to make sure that Iran understands that there are going to be consequences.
Said explains that different forms of sanctions that the United States usually use won’t work in the case of Iran. If Iranian oil were placed under an embargo, for example, it would lead to an increase in oil prices, which is one reason sanctions won’t work. Said notes that even American companies would object to such actions.
But is military intervention an option? We haven t taken any options off the table, said Joseph, But nobody wants to use force in this situation.
Joseph repeatedly stressed that Iran s nuclear program is intolerable. He said all facts indicate that its program is not peaceful. We are not going to permit Iran to have a nuclear weapon, he added.
He said a nuclear armed Iran would be more aggressive, adding, I think you need to look at the program in the context of Iran’s overall policies. Iran, I would argue, is a threat even without nuclear weapons.
Iran is using terrorism to undercut the prospects of peace in the Middle East. It s using terrorism to deny the legitimate aspirations of the Lebanese people. It is undercutting the move to democracy and the improvement of human rights in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
Yet, the stance of the Egyptian government lacks public support as public opinion still favors the Iranian nuclear program. This stance stems from what the public sees as incoherence in international policies: pressuring and punishing Iran on one side and turning a blind eye to similar programs in other countries, especially Israel, on the other.
*Said explains that even those who oppose the political system in Iran, like himself, are in favor of its nuclear program, noting that no politician could convince the public that it is legitimate for Israel to have nuclear weapons while Iran is not even allowed to have a nuclear program.
North Korea and Iran are under severe pressure to end their nuclear programs, and Joseph said they have violated the NPT that they had signed. Israel, Pakistan and India have yet to sign the NPT.
Some tie the policy of overlooking nuclear development with U.S. relations to the country in question. U.S. cooperation with India has encouraged the latter to make several commitments regarding its nuclear program in exchange for international acceptance and cooperation. U.S. relations with Pakistan are different, but cooperation continues. Regarding Israel, the country has strong ties with the United States. We have always made it very clear that we are for universality in terms of the NPT, Joseph explained, But here again, as with India, as with Pakistan, Israel will never sign the NPT. None of these states could be compared to Iran and North Korea, both of which signed and violated the NPT in the most cynical fashion.
To compare these countries to Iran is just nonsense, Joseph added.
As public opinion remains largely unchanged regarding the issue, Said referred to the lack of “harmony and the “huge gap between the government and the public, another question comes into the spotlight: Is the United States working against the Iranian nuclear program solely to protect Israeli interest?
I don t think that there is any question that a nuclear armed Iran represents a threat to Israel, Joseph said. But he stressed that while there is no conspiracy; the United States is also protecting its own interests.
A nuclear armed Iran would have profound consequences independent of the question of Israel, he explained.
We believe that a nuclear armed Iran would feel more emboldened to use terrorism throughout the region and worldwide . [It] could also lead to further proliferation in the region . [It] would represent, I think, a direct threat to the forces of the United States in the region, the forces of our friends and allies, the populations of the regional states as well as Europe and ultimately to the United States, Joseph explained. He added that there is also the possibility that nuclear weapons could be transferred to a third party terrorist.
“And this is something we are not going to allow, he added.
