By Tao Wenzhao

At last, Iran gave its formal answer to the six-party package on August 22.

Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, said: "We prepared the answer to the proposed package positively. And despite ambiguities on many cases, we tried to pave the way for fair talks with a logical and positive approach." He spoke in a meeting in Teheran with ambassadors from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and Switzerland as caretaker of US interests in Iran.

Taken at face value, the 21-page Iranian paper sounds reasonable and properly toned. The answer, however, is disappointing to the international community, steering clear of the heart of the six-party plan stopping uranium enrichment. With this response, Iran presents a hard nut for the six countries and the international community to crack.

The United Nations Security Council's Resolution 1696 mandates that Iran would face sanctions if it fails to halt all activities related to uranium enrichment before August 31.
 
But Iranian officials declared on various occasions that Iran refused to accept the terms. For example, Mohammad Saidi, deputy director of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency, stated on August 21 that it was virtually impossible now to stop uranium enrichment activities in view of the progress made by Iranian scientists in the nuclear field. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attended and presided over the ceremony dedicating the heavy water plant in Arak. Foreign media was invited to the ceremony, which were meant to expand the influence of the event as well as exhibit Iran's nuclear transparency. The Iranian president stated at the dedication ceremony that Iran would defend its nuclear rights with all means, including force.

Taking all this into account, one thing is crystal clear it is absolutely impossible for Iran to abide by the UN resolution before August 31.

What shall the six countries do? Implement sanctions against Iran by the UN mandate before having negotiations with that country? Or, have negotiations first, shelving the sanction options for a while?

If the six countries agree to resume negotiations with Iran, a new round of diplomatic talks on Iran's nuclear program would be set in motion and new prospects, therefore, would be opened up. But Resolution 1696 would be sidetracked, which is embarrassing for the six countries.

Why not impose sanctions right away? Sanctions at this stage, however, seem unreasonable because Iran has not yet slammed the door on negotiations.

Obviously, Iran's aim is to neutralize the UN Security Council's resolution, and it has. The country has scored a point diplomatically.

The intention of the United States is equally clear: Sanctions should be imposed on Iran now that its answer falls short of meeting the Security Council's demand.

John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN, made it clear that Washington is preparing a draft resolution for sanctions, which is expected to be submitted to the Security Council soon.

The problem, however, is that Iran refrains from saying a definite "yes" or "no" to the six-party package. Its stance seems to remain open, urging that no prerequisites for talks be set. This means that the issue of uranium enrichment is still open for discussion. A smart maneuver.

The content of Iran's answer has not yet been made public so far. If some constructive steps, as we guess is the case, are contained in the answer such as the commitment not to use nuclear material procession to the ends of building bombs Iran could win over support from Security Council members. These steps may also include checks on Iran's nuclear facilities and video monitoring of these facilities.

Iran has always refused to accept any preconditions, including a stoppage of uranium enrichment activities, before the incentive measures contained in the six-party package are discussed. Conversely, Western countries emphasize that there would be no discussions about the incentives until Iran stops its uranium enrichment.

The United States and Iran have remained hostile to each other for the last 27 years, with no diplomatic or economic relations existing between the two sides. This is really a peculiar situation.

Russia has made it clear that it will stick to negotiations where the settlement of Iran's nuclear program is concerned. What is important at the present stage, from the Russian point of view, is to decipher the subtle connotations in Iran's answer and pinpoint the constructive elements in it.

Conditioned on this, can the decision be made on whether co-operation with Iran on the basis of the six-party plan will be continued or not? China has stated time and again that diplomatic negotiations are the best option for resolving the issue and that all parties concerned should leave no stones unturned to see the resumption of the talks.

In the United States, opinions differ widely, and heated argument is still going on. Hawks urge that Iran's overseas properties be frozen as one sanction measure before this month is out. They also wish to ban the sale to Iran of products that can be used for either civilian or military purposes.

The doves argue that these terms will face difficulty winning approval from other members of the Security Council, Russia and China in particular. They call for caution since the sanctions would be the first ever directed against Iran. They suggest, therefore, the adoption of token sanctions such as denying high-ranking Iranian officials visas for the US or other nations. With such measures in place, no matter how symbolic or insubstantial they are, a US diplomatic triumph is achieved.

Iran's influence has been heightened by the chaotic Middle East situation of recent years. This is the reality that must be reckoned with by the international community in addressing the issue of Iran's nuclear program.

In this scenario, a US military strike against Iran seems unfounded and economic sanctions should also be pursued with extreme caution. In addition, Iran has a pool of counter-measures.

In the opinion of this author, negotiations will ultimately be resorted to so that a way can be found that guarantees the national interests of Iran on the one hand and assures non-proliferation on the other.

In sum, a bumpy road is ahead.

The author is a researcher with the Institute of American Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

(China Daily August 30, 2006)