Opinion: Iran Nukes Debate Needs Fair Play All Around

In politics, like in games, those who don't stick to the rules are either respected, or they are dismissed. That's the point the United States has been trying to get across to Iran in the debate over that country's nuclear activity. The US, like many Europeans, believes Tehran has been playing with a marked deck, and says the country has not earned the other players' trust. As a result, they say, the country needs to be sanctioned.

In its August 22 response to an offer from the international community aimed at ending the long-running nuclear standoff, Tehran called for "serious talks" but gave no indication it would freeze uranium enrichment, as demanded by the UN Security Council.

Yet even though the details of the response haven't been revealed, Tehran is once again left holding the bag, just because it refuses to fulfill its opponents' expectations.

Fulfilling obligations

For their part, the Americans and Europeans must acknowledge that they bent the rules in their favor in order to put pressure on Iran. For instance, US Ambassador to the UN John Bolten announced that Tehran needed to be stopped because it had breached the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Such comments are taken without recourse, although this is exactly the point of disagreement in the nuclear debate.

For years, Iran has been fulfilling the obligations of the non-proliferation treaties it has signed. But no one in Washington, Jerusalem, and at this point also Brussels, seems to believe it. Why would such an oil-rich state be interested in atomic energy, they ask. It must be a disguised attempt to develop nuclear weapons.

It is a thesis that many find especially easy to believe, because for years the world has been watching Tehran stall for time rather than work toward a solution. And Iran's answer on Tuesday appeared to be yet another such attempt.

Lack of proof

But the answer -- like the country's delay tactics -- doesn't mean Iran is necessarily seeking to build atomic weapons. There is no proof that this is the case. And therefore it would have been better for the UN Security Council to have taken a conciliatory approach toward Tehran, and not to have threatened Tehran with an ultimatum. That action simply gave a boost to hardliners in Tehran and made it more difficult to find an agreement. Moreover, it cast the non-proliferation treaty itself into question. What value does such a treaty have, if its rules can be interpreted at will and at whim?

The lack of progress in the nuclear debate cannot -- and should not -- simply be attributed to one party. The Security Council and Germany have clearly been too openly pulled along in the wake of the USA, and as a result they have forgotten the basic rules of politics and diplomacy. For its part, Iran continues to drag its feet, has avoided making definitive statements, and hasn't made much of an effort to eliminate the mistrust of foreign countries.

Nonetheless, Tehran's promise to begin immediate negotiations should be seen as a positive turn. Note, however, that Tehran could have given the same answer three months ago. Meanwhile, valuable time was squandered and the level of mistrust has increased.

Middle East expert Peter Philipp is Deutsche Welle's chief correspondent (jen).