Mr. Chairman: The next challenge

The NIE report regarding the Iran nuclear situation published at the end of last year caused an international storm. The US president, the Israeli prime minister, European and Asian leaders, intelligence agencies and media centers - all attributed supreme importance to the document and proceeded to analyze its meaning.

This is not surprising in and of itself: the possibility that Iran is developing a nuclear program, the possibility that significant economic and political pressure will be applied on Iran; the possibility that the campaign to stop Iran's nuclear program will fail; the possibility that attacking Iran's nuclear sites will provoke a counter-attack; these are all scenarios that have intensely occupied the minds of decision-makers around the world in the Middle East and for world powers such as the US, China, the UK, France and Germany equally. The NIE report was bound to have an impact, direct or indirect, on the scenarios above - and has therefore generated such resonance.

The report paved a new and important avenue in the campaign to thwart Iran's nuclear program. In its wake, the US government's maneuvering around any military action against Iranian nuclear sites reduced significantly.

The possibility that in the very near future, the American stance will change following "incriminating" new information that may come to light about the covert nuclear program being pursued by Teheran, cannot be discounted. The intelligence industry is a very dynamic and developing field. Intelligence agencies worldwide approach the matter as high priority - and there is always the possibility that one of them will succeed in providing concrete evidence contradicting the NIE report. 

However, in the meantime, a situation exists in which there is strong suspicion that the report can cause severe damage, particularly due to two of its main points: the first is that as of mid-2007, Iran had not renewed its nuclear program, which was frozen in 2003 and the second is that the estimation that in 2009 Iran would be able to sufficiently enrich Uranium to be used for nuclear purposes was an "unrealistic time-frame" and as such, a more acceptable time-frame was between 2010 and 2015. 

In facing these claims, the American military option was effectively taken off the table, at least under the Bush administration especially whose leadership has been a source of controversy at home and abroad.

In March, the tables started to turn once again: the UN Security Council, for the third time, issued sanctions on Iran for its continued pursuit of nuclear power. The concerns that the NIE report would neutralize the "fighting spirit" in the international community - were proven false. And once again, the decision was made unanimously (except for Indonesia who abstained from the vote). Even Russia and China, two countries with very close economic ties to Iran supported the additional sanctions. We are talking about a very soft decision practically since no one is deluded enough to think that this will bring about a change in Iran's behavior. Its meaning, however, is significant: it erases the questions marks that the NIE put forward about a diplomatic process. The failure of such an approach will pave the way for more aggressive stances - however, if the diplomatic process is stopped altogether, efforts for alternative solutions can become delegitimized.

In this context, the UNSC's decision was crucial - and not less crucial are the expected developments of the next few weeks: EU countries are moving forward with initiatives to sanction Iran. These sanctions will increase international pressure on the decision-makers in Teheran. This is a critical test for Europe and let's hope it won't fail.