海角大神

Iran鈥檚 assertion that it has a guaranteed international 鈥渞ight鈥� to uranium enrichment 鈥� and its demand that this right be formally recognized in writing 鈥� have emerged as key factors in the failure of negotiators to reach a deal to curb Iran鈥檚 nuclear activities.

Yet what sounds like an easily answered question 鈥� Does Iran or any other country have such a right or not? 鈥� turns out to be far from clear, with fervent believers on both sides and some in between.

The US now says Iran has no such right 鈥� but that was not always the case. Less than a decade ago, during the Bush administration, some officials held that it did.

The source of the confusion is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, which says that its 190 signatories (of which Iran is one) have an 鈥渋nalienable right 鈥� to develop, research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.鈥�

No mention is made of uranium enrichment, an activity that can serve as a crucial part of peaceful nuclear energy production 鈥� or lead to production of fuel for a nuclear weapon. Yet supporters of Iran鈥檚 position say a right to enrichment is implicit in the treaty鈥檚 stated right to production of nuclear energy.

How this question is resolved may well determine whether or not a deal on Iran鈥檚 advancing nuclear program can be reached when negotiators from six world powers meet with Iran again next week in Geneva.

And as important as the question of a 鈥渞ight鈥� to enrichment has become to the Iran talks, how it is resolved will also have far-reaching repercussions around the globe, some nuclear experts say, because of its potential for setting off a chain reaction of destabilizing enrichment activity. Countries from Saudi Arabia to Vietnam and South Korea, either contemplating or in varying stages of nuclear development, could seize on any 鈥渞ight to enrichment鈥� that was set in stone.

鈥淭he problem is that the US and others want this [Iran accord] to be a one-off, and the truth is it won鈥檛 be,鈥� says Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC) in Washington. 鈥淭hey know very well that whatever they agree to in the Iran case is going to have collateral impact well beyond the Iranian issue.鈥�

One solution in Iran鈥檚 case would be to simply leave out of any accord any reference to a 鈥渞ight to enrichment,鈥� but this option reportedly does not suit the Iranians, who want to see the right enshrined in any agreement.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who has spoken for months of Iran鈥檚 right to enrichment, vowed again Sunday that Iran will never give up its 鈥渘uclear rights,鈥� including enrichment. 鈥淭he rights of the Iranian nation and our national interests are a red line,鈥� Mr. Rouhani said. 鈥淪o are nuclear rights and the framework of international regulations, which include enrichment on Iranian soil.鈥�

Obama administration officials from the president on down have spoken of Iran鈥檚 right to peaceful nuclear energy, but they almost always twin that 鈥渞ight鈥� with an obligation to offer verifiable guarantees that any nuclear activities are not being diverted to military purposes.

鈥淭here is no right that is specific within the NPT about enrichment,鈥� Secretary of State John Kerry said flatly in an interview Monday with the BBC. Repeating later that 鈥渞ight鈥� is the 鈥渨rong word,鈥� Mr. Kerry went on to speak of 鈥渟tandards鈥� that, if met, could allow the Iranians some level of nuclear activity.

鈥淲hat they have to see is that 鈥� there is a standard by which they might be able to do something, provided they meet certain standards in order to do it,鈥� Kerry said.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month, Wendy Sherman, the administration鈥檚 chief negotiator with the Iranians, was even more adamant, saying 鈥渋t has always been the US position that [the NPT] does not speak about the right of聽 enrichment at all, doesn鈥檛 speak to enrichment, period.鈥� The US position, she added, is to look at each country individually and on its merits.

President Obama offered a further nuanced interpretation of Iran鈥檚 rights when he said in September that the US respects 鈥渢he right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy in the context of Iran meeting its obligations.鈥� 聽聽

By 鈥渙bligations,鈥� Mr. Obama was no doubt referring to the safeguards that the NPT also calls on countries to accept to ensure that nuclear fuels are not being diverted to non-peaceful purposes.

Beyond the Iran nuclear stalemate, how the 鈥渞ight to enrichment鈥� question is resolved will influence global perceptions of the big powers and their handling of other issues.

NPEC鈥檚 Mr. Sokolski says he realized this several years ago when a high-ranking Iranian official told him that establishing the 鈥渞ight to enrichment鈥� was important to Iran for more than just the nuclear issue.

鈥淲hat he told me was, 鈥業f we are doing what it is our right to do, then you look like you are beating up on us and being the bully,鈥� 鈥� Sokolski recalls.

For senior officials like Kerry to be pointing out that a right to enrichment 鈥渋s not in the NPT is a good start,鈥� Sokolski says, as it suggests the US may not be afraid of looking a bit like the bully if it means getting the looming problem of nuclear fuels proliferation right.

It may be too late in Iran鈥檚 case, Sokolski says, given the advanced state of its program, but he says it will still matter a lot for the other countries that are lining up to develop nuclear programs.