In These New Times

Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Asia Times

7th May, 2010

Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad seems to only gain in strength with the growing intensity of North American and European attacks against him. Such is the global community’s slide into competing camps, his championing of the nuclear “have-nots” – the bulk of the world’s population – gives him the demeanor of a peace activist who speaks the language of disarmament.

Irrespective of the Western governments’ boycott and negative media coverage, his appearance at the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference in New York this week contained all the elements of an historic speech.

Ahmadinejad toned down his customary incendiary delivery, but lost none of his precision targeting as he focused on the shortcomings of global disarmament, a flawed US nuclear doctrine, and the various steps necessary to achieve complete nuclear disarmament, including a revision of the United Nations’ power structure that he said contributed to perpetuating the present nuclear status quo.

Speaking immediately after a representative from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), who also lambasted the attempts of Western governments to curtail developing nations’ access to peaceful nuclear technology, Ahmadinejad directed his usual barrage of criticisms at Israel and the United States, albeit it in diplomatic language.

United States officials led by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were quick to dismiss the speech as “aggressive” and aimed at “diverting attention” from Iran’s alleged nuclear proliferation activities. Clinton categorically claimed that Iran was in breach of its NPT obligations – a charge flatly denied by Iran, which today boasts of extensive cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The feisty Ahmadinejad, taking his disarmament cause to the US television networks after his speech, has definitely tapped into the reservoir of “smart power” that Clinton claimed for herself at her nomination hearing over a year ago. The Iranian president showed himself as being not short on wit or initiative when in one interview he snapped back at accusations that Osama bin Laden was living in luxury in Tehran by saying the al-Qaeda leader could be alive and well in Washington DC.

If “smart power” means exploiting opportunities as they show up, and using the soft power of public diplomacy to one’s advantage, then there is no doubt that Ahmadinejad’s recent nuclear moves mean that in a sense he has stolen the “smart power” torch and may, in fact, score a solid victory in the battleground of the review conference.

His moves have included initiating a disarmament conference in Tehran followed by the sudden decision to lead the charge at the New York conference and zero in on NPT’s Article VI on disarmament at a time when Western powers long planned to focus on NPT articles pertaining to access to nuclear technology and non-proliferation.

An early indication of this development can be seen in the quick turn-around by UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, who initially slighted Ahmadinejad by leaving the UN hall right before Ahmadinejad’s speech and yet could be seen shaking hands with Ahmadinejad on the front page of Tehran dailies. This was most likely a result of an assessment by Ban to avoid the damage to his own reputation if he simply emulated the negative reaction of Western officials and disregarded that Ahmadinejad’s popularity in many corners of the world has skyrocketed due to his singular defiance of Western will.

This is in light of his speech’s attack on global hegemony and his proactive “eleven recommendations”, including the censure by the IAEA of nuclear-weapons states that threaten other states, as well as the idea of a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone.

Concerning the latter, Egypt in both its pre-conference working paper and conference presentation, has prioritized implementation measures for the goal of a regional nuclear-free zone that was adopted at the1995 NPT review conference. Ignoring Israel’s plea to back down, Egypt, as the current chair of the NAM, is obligated to reflect the powerful sentiments of NAM member states, otherwise it would lose legitimacy.

In fact, the same argument applies to the US and other Western governments, who signed up to the 1995 idea of ridding the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction and yet have been anything but outspoken about pursuing it, given their support for Israel. As a result, the conference’s polarization over this thorny issue is already fully manifested, and the question is how damaging the rift will be to the conference’s unity and ultimate purpose?

There is little doubt that the Iran-Egypt concert on this and other related issues is considered a serious menace by Western governments who dread the thought of yet another “failed conference” after the 2005 event, even though that particular conference’s failure to produce a final statement agreeable to all, in light of the consensual mode of decision-making at the conference, was not necessarily an “equal failure”. In fact, in 2005, Iran, Egypt and a number of other NAM nations discretely relished as a “small victory” the lack of a tangible document averse to their own interests.

What matters more than the final outcome, however, is the review conference currently underway (which started on May 3 and ends May 28) in which the tide will likely change direction depending on savvy diplomacy from key participants and the coalitions they muster.

Despite Ahmadinejad’s growing Third World popularity, it is still not far-fetched to think that Western governments will somehow manage to turn the tide, recuperate their losses and deliver a stunning blow to Iran. Much depends on Iran’s ability to sustain the present momentum for a NAM-based united front at the conference, so that the twin agenda of unfettered access to peaceful nuclear technology and disarmament continues to enjoy full attention.

“This is a pitched battle and if Mr Ahmadinejad emerges successful at the end of the conference, then this will increase the base of his support among the population,” says a Tehran political analyst, adding that by the same token the lack of progress and the continuation of business as usual would also adversely affect Iran.

There is, in other words, an element of risk and even a gamble involved in the two scenarios and before long we will know which has the upper hand. Meanwhile, it is abundantly clear that Ahmadinejad has scored a major victory at home, by appearing bold, innovative and with sufficient diplomatic prowess to take on Uncle Sam on its own turf.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran’s Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. His latest book, Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing , October 23, 2008) is now available