The Russians, to their credit, tried to work out a compromise, proposing that Iran be allowed to run a small R&D program of thirty to forty centrifuges, the specifics of which would be determined in consultation with the IAEA. The Americans, however, were adamantly against any such compromise and Iran did not openly endorse it, so the Russians withdrew their suggestion.
I thought the Russian proposal made sense and could open up a way out of our stalemate. When Bolton’s replacement, Bob Joseph, visited me in Vienna, I told him so. Condoleezza Rice called me shortly thereafter, in my hotel room in Davos. “Our path seems to have diverted since we last met,” she said, her tone rather unfriendly. She implied that I supported an Iranian R&D program, thus legitimizing Iranian enrichment. As I told her, I had taken no public position on the issue but believed the benefit of the Russian proposal far outweighed its cost for two reasons. First, the IAEA needed to be able to inspect possible undeclared activities in Iran, thus it was essential that Iran continue to implement its Additional Protocol. Also, we needed to begin negotiations if we hoped to halt Iran’s progress toward industrial-scale enrichment. At the end of a tense conversation, I emphasized that IAEA Member States would decide how to proceed, but that I owed them at least my view of things.[1]
In February, the IAEA Board opened a new phase in the Iran saga—by referring the Iran file to the Security Council. The verdict came after more than two years of failed efforts by the EU-3 and Iran to reach an agreement on Tehran’s nuclear program through diplomacy. The Board vote was split: among its thirty-five members, five developing nations abstained, and three voted against the resolution, on the grounds that Iran’s suspension of enrichment activities had been voluntary and not legally binding. This split was a rare event; the Board traditionally has made a point of reaching its decisions by consensus, a practice often referred to as “the Spirit of Vienna.” The nonconsensus decision was not a good sign.
Iran struck back by ending the implementation of its Additional Protocol.[2] This was not unexpected; in September 2005, the Iranian Majlis had passed a law directing the government to suspend the Protocol, as a retaliatory action, if Iran should be referred to the Security Council. This step would significantly curtail the tools available to the IAEA to inspect for undeclared nuclear material and activities. In the Iran nuclear saga, positions had now hardened.
Another trip to Washington was in order. In May, I met with Rice and John Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Negroponte agreed entirely with the inspectors’ assessment that even if Iran’s intention was to develop nuclear weapons, it was at least a few years away, in terms of technological capacity, from doing so. Negroponte kept repeating this view in public, perhaps as a way to fend off the Israelis and hard-liners, who were beating the drum for military action.
With Condoleezza Rice, I wanted to get the relationship back on track. Naturally, we did not always see eye to eye, but after our tense meetings in the leadup to the Iraq War, we had consistently treated each other with respect and even, on occasion, humor. Rice always came across as more sensible and pragmatic than ideological, particularly when we were alone. Clearly, her view did not always prevail and her first obligation was to implement the decisions made by Bush, to whom she was extremely loyal. I seldom felt certain about where she stood; nevertheless, within the Bush administration, I considered her an asset and a proponent of diplomacy.
After a bit of small talk that touched on her love of shoes—Rice once told me that she sometimes bought five or six pairs at a time—I moved to the point I had come to make: the United States urgently needed to take part in discussions with Iran. “The dialogue,” I told her, “will not move forward without your participation.”
Before traveling to the United States, I had met with Ali Larijani, the top Iranian nuclear negotiator. He had asked me to convey a set of messages to Washington: the Iranians were interested in direct talks with the United States. They were ready to discuss not only Iran’s nuclear issues, but also Iraq, Afghanistan, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Larijani believed that Iran could be of great influence in matters related to the upcoming mid-term U.S. elections: Iran could assist with security in Baghdad and also help establish a national unity government in Lebanon. At that I saw Rice’s eyes light up.
I emphasized to her and to Bob Joseph that a small centrifuge R&D program in Iran was a minor issue from a proliferation perspective. If Iran really wanted to perfect its enrichment technology on an R&D scale, it could easily do so underground, and no one would be any the wiser. “In fact,” I said, “it is a good sign that they are insisting on having it above board.”
I repeated the arguments I had made earlier to Rice on the phone. The important thing was to freeze any move toward industrial-scale enrichment and maintain a robust IAEA verification presence in Iran. “What use is it,” I asked, “if we have perfect verification of Iran’s declared nuclear activities, but we don’t have the Protocol in place to ensure they are not working undetected on an underground program?” Plus, I added, there was a big difference between having the know-how to build a weapon and developing the industrial capacity to actually do it. Once again I made my point that allowing Iran a small R&D operation as a face-saving measure was not a high price to pay.
I was glad to see Rice paying close attention. I realized the only thing she heard, day in and day out, was the compulsive repetition of the “not one centrifuge” position I’d heard advocated by Steve Hadley. This red line had its origin in something the British had said during the previous round of negotiations with Iran, that the United Kingdom had built its nuclear weapons program based on the knowledge gained from running sixteen centrifuges. “Not one centrifuge” had taken on vast importance for those Beltway ideologues who saw the United States as global disciplinarian and who listened only to one another, perpetuating beliefs that were utterly removed from reality. It had always been clear that Iran would never eliminate its entire enrichment program.
Although some Americans wanted no dialogue or rapprochement with Iran whatsoever—in April reports had even circulated of covert U.S. plans to attack Iran’s nuclear sites with “bunker-busting” weapons—Rice seemed to hold the view that Iran would ultimately give in. “Iran is not North Korea,” she said. “Iran does not want to be isolated. It will buckle under pressure.”
“My fear,” I replied, “is that increasing the pressure on Iran will backfire.” I could see that U.S. policy on Iran was coming down to two simplistic mantras: “not one centrifuge” and “Iran will buckle.” There was no flexibility to adjust to the evolving reality.
When alone with me, Rice emphasized that both she and President Bush were working hard to find a peaceful resolution to the Iranian issue, implying that they had no intention of resorting to the use of force. And a few days later, Washington announced that it was ready to take part in direct dialogue with Tehran, provided that Iran suspended all its enrichment-related activities.
1
After a meeting with Rice, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, publicly denied that there had ever been a Russian proposal. He obviously wanted to maintain the unity of the negotiating parties and did not want to disagree with the United States in public.
2
The Majlis had never ratified Iran’s Additional Protocol, but the Iranians had been implementing it provisionally.