The Iran nuclear debate may be easily referred to as one of the most debated issues in the recent past. While the Western countries led by the US are convinced Iran is developing nuclear weapons, Iran denies the allegations and maintains that every sovereign nation must have the independence to develop civilian nuclear energy.

The Iranian ambassador to the UN, Javad Zarif has recently presented an innovative idea which may lead to the dissolution of the long existing deadlock. In a news report in Time, the diplomat describes his plan as the final and the only way the issue can ever be solved. He believes that To break that impasse, Zarif argues that both sides should discuss what their final aims would be. He says.

We could start with two premises: One, that Iran has the right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Two, that Iran should never move in the direction of building nuclear weapons.

The nuclear consortium: pros and cons

In order to guarantee that Iran does not use the nuclear technology to develop WMDs, Zarif builds on an approach that Iran floated last October.

Iran could agree that its nuclear facilities, including all of its enrichment plants, could be jointly owned by an international consortium. All countries with concerns, including the U.S., could participate in that consortium. Their people and other foreign nationals could come and go to work at the facilities, which would allow for the best type of monitoring.

The agreement is also open to having other elements the U.S. would want. “You can put in a legal agreement that Iran could not withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” which it ratified in 1970. In addition, he said, there could be protocols for intrusive monitoring.

The pros

The above plan may well be the best way to avoid cheating by Iran. From the prespective of the international community, Because many countries would own and operate the plants, there would be built-in safeguards against nationalization or cheating Additionally, From Iran’s perspective, this would be less offensive than just having inspectors. Zarif explains that

It is an issue of respect. Of course you are monitoring as you do this, but you are doing it with respect as owners and operators.

The cons

The plan also withholds certain weaknesses. Iran might use both the knowledge and the enriched uranium from consortium plants to pursue a secret bomb-making program. A possible solution to which would mean additional safeguards to the ones mentioned above, such as involvement by the international consortium in all Iranian nuclear facilities rather than just the enrichment sites, an agreement that there can be snap intrusive inspections of any facility, a verifiable cap on Iran’s production of enriched uranium and a requirement that no facilities be hidden or buried.

What now

The fact remains that for the strategy to work, the parties must meet and discuss it in an unbiased manner. However, the US is still stubborn about the fact that for any talks to begin, Iran must first stop its uranium enrichment activities. Iran, believing that it is not doing anything wrong by extending its rights, does not pay heed to the US demand. Therefore, however feasible the consortium might seem at this point, it looks like it will be a while before any of the sides agrees to step down from the ego-podium and initiate dialogue.

Via: Time