NATO PA - 1-2 JULY 2007 - 4TH NAPLES SEMINAR [Seminar Report]
NATOs Parlamentariske Forsamling 2006-07
NPA Alm.del - Bilag 98
Side 1 af 6
Offentligt
NATO Parliamentary Assembly
NATOs Parlamentariske Forsamling
NPA alm. del - Bilag 98
Offentligt
> Home > Publications > Mediterranean Special Group > 2007 > 1-2 JULY 2007 - 4TH NAPLES SEMINAR [Seminar Report]
1-2 JULY 2007 - 4TH NAPLES SEMINAR [Seminar Report]
1. Some 40 members of parliament from NATO and NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA) Mediterranean Associate
countries (Algeria, Israel and Jordan) met in Naples from 1-2 July for a seminar, organized in co-operation with the Italian
delegation to the NATO PA, to discuss security issues in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.
I. SESSION I - IRAN: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
2. The first session focused on Iran, recent internal political developments, the nuclear issue and foreign policy developments.
The first presentation was given by Ali Reza Sheikholeslami, who currently teaches International Politics at the American
University of Sharjah, UAE, and who is a former Professor or Persian studies at the University of Oxford. He gave a detailed
account of the internal political situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
and
3. Professor Sheikholeslami explained that before the 1979 revolution in Iran the political system was highly centralised
of a person. The Shah was an enlightened, patriotic and
personalised, an anthropomorphic system that had taken the structure
the US
human person, but he did also make erratic decisions. This politically rather primitive system was mistaken in Europe and
d into the current system where many actors
for a modern system, which it was not. After the revolution, the system transforme
and
now take decisions. Iran today is a highly de-personalised state where office holders compete with and watch each other
measures all their leaders in Iran in human
where decisions are made to secure the own tenure of office. The Iranian population
in Libya.
terms and not a single leader is in control in Iran, unlike the cases of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or Muammar Ghaddafi
arrangements in Iran do not
Leadership is collective and based on horse-trading and compromises. The current political structural
a big
allow for adventurism in foreign policy. Professor Sheikholeslami said that those who maintain the integrity in Iran are doing
breakdown of this
service not only to Iran, but also to the outside world. He explicitly warned of the consequences of a potential
50% of
rather fragile system, e. g. through a foreign military intervention. He called Iran an ethnographic museum in which only
much more severe
the population speak the national language. A breakdown would affect every neighbouring country, and have
consequences than the current problems in Iraq. The system is held together delicately and an outside shock could be fatal.
by
Those with the means of violence in Iran would act in an unrestrained manner and "Iraq would be a happy experience
comparison", the speaker said.
and on the
4. Professor Sheikholeslami also explained the current domestic Iranian debates on the religious and political system
a contradiction in terms, it
wide range of opinions that exist among politicians and clerics. The "Republic of Iran" is an oxymoron,
advertise an
is a republic divided, as a house against itself. While some clergy stress the republican nature of the state, others
of any political
even stronger role of Islam in the state. Some argue for more political party power, others against the existence
side is powerful
party. A strong ideological division exists that is also expressed in the press and discussed in parliament. Neither
a system that can be
enough to destroy the other side and neither wants to. Unilateral action and dictatorship are not possible in
al threats
described as having a strong balance of power. The system and the people are united, however, against fundament
all Iranian political forces is defending and maintaining the current system if
from the outside. The only action that will unite
attacked.
the second
5. Maurizio Martellini, who is the Secretary General for the think-tank, Landau Network - Centro Volta, gave
wishes to acquire
presentation on Iran. He mainly addressed the Iranian nuclear issue and started by elaborating on the Iranian
and remember the
nuclear weapon capabilities and mentioned that Iranians are afraid of other countries' foreign policy agendas
will also allow
Western, especially US involvement in the coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh in the 1950s. Nuclear power
Iran to maintain a military capacity.
programme and the
6. Professor Martellini also elaborated on the double-nature of a nuclear programme, the peaceful civilian
of nuclear energy in
military application of often the same equipment. It is very difficult to completely guarantee the civilian use
use and mentioned two
any country. He also discussed the "red line" the international community draws regarding nuclear energy
involved the technology
important thresholds. The first one is the complete mastery of the uranium cycle for fuel. The second one
necessary for making a bomb.
the final step of the fuel
7. According to the last report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has mastered
fully operational and running
enrichment for which 3,000 centrifuges will be used and deployed. If these 3,000 centrifuges are
d uranium gas, six
permanently, one Hiroshima-like bomb can be produced. If the same centrifuges are used with low-enriche
. For the actual
bombs could be produced. The Iranian government is allegedly planning to build 51,000 centrifuges
the Iranian programme is
weaponization, Iran needs between three and eight years. The IAEA is not currently able to verify that
Council resolutions were
only for peaceful purposes; while at the same time it also cannot prove that it is not. Several UN Security
said that the Iranian
passed requiring Iran to give an answer to the critical questions about its programme. Professor Martellini
find an exit strategy. A "Grand Bargain" has to be conceived from
regime will not give up its nuclear ambitions and that we need to
with business as
which all political players involved would benefit. He saw five options for how to engage with Iran: 1) to continue
in Iran; 3) a military strike against nuclear facilities; 4) a
usual and pass resolution after resolution; 2) to induce regime change
is without negative side
comprehensive bargain strategy; 5) a containment and engagement strategy. None of these options
. He rules out the military option since Iran is a huge
effects, but only arrangements with 'sticks and carrots' will lead to something
country that might have clandestine capacities and be able to resume its nuclear programme.
http://www.nato-pa.int/Default.asp?CAT2=1189&CAT1-743&CAT0=2&COM=127... 28-08-2007