Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

January 26, 2012 |  13 comments |  Print  Your Opinion  

Renewable Energy as an Incentive for Peace

Keri Elise Majikes: The US can eliminate Iran’s incentives for developing nuclear technology without becoming militarily involved by creating an economic agreement that establishes Iran as a leader in renewable energy. Such an agreement would be less expensive than a military operation against Iran.

The United States and the majority of the international community are increasingly concerned about the possibility of a nuclear Iran for a number of reasons. First, Iran has proven itself an ally of terrorists and could pass nuclear technology to them. Second, Iran has declared itself the primary enemy of Israel, a country that is strategically important to the delicate political balance in the Middle East. Finally, a nuclear Iran would cause other Middle Eastern countries to fear for their own safety and seek their own nuclear capabilities, resulting in additional destabilization in the region.

Despite widespread belief to the contrary, Iran does not have enough oil to sustain domestic power for even three generations. Currently, Iran obtains the majority of its energy from oil and natural gas and has no plan to transition to other energy sources. This creates a problem regarding Iran's future domestic energy demand, and leads Iran to seek nuclear enrichment for energy in addition to any geopolitical reasons it already may have for doing so. Additionally,it is clear that the Iranian people are very interested in obtaining regional leadership and respect. Currently, Iran's government is pursuing legitimacy by seeking nuclear capabilities for military purposes. These capabilities would offer increased regional standing and alternative energy resources, but do so in a way that would destabilize the Middle East. The United States must negate both the energy and status incentives Iran has for pursuing nuclear technology.

By training Iranian citizens to produce renewable energy such as solar power or wind power, and providing materials to help them build their renewable energy capacity, the United States could offer Iran a solution to its legitimate energy problems. Further, it could also offer Iran an alternative, non-nuclear path to recognition as a regional power. If Iran pursued the training programs offered through such a deal and invested further in renewable energy sources, it might become a global leader in renewable energy. As oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuel supplies decrease, renewable energy technology will be particularly valuable in the Middle East because Arab countries will need large amounts of energy to desalinize water as conventional energy supplies become scarce. Those countries will absolutely need a regional energy leader and Iran can fill this gap before other Middle Eastern countries invest their own resources in new energy sources.

Although many governments' leaders instinctively turn to economic sanctions in an attempt to discourage Iran, economic sanctions are extremely difficult to manage because of the extent Iranian markets have been globalized and the value of Iran's resources. In comparison, an economic treaty provides greater incentive to forego nuclear enrichment because the agreement would offer Iran a solution to its own looming energy crisis.

While such an agreement might be expensive for the United States, the cost would surely be less than the cost of entering into a military conflict with Iran or assisting another country's attack on Iran. Additionally, the cost of an economic agreement would not exceed the cost of a "do nothing" approach, which would cause severe strategic problems regarding the stability of the Middle East. The price of the agreement could also be lessened if the United States persuaded other countries to contribute. Considering the threat a nuclear Iran would pose to numerous countries, finding support should not be difficult.

As policymakers consider possible methods for deterring Iran's nuclear proliferation, the United States should choose to pursue an economic pact with Iran that would eliminate Iran's incentives for nuclear enrichment, rooted in energy resources and regional power dynamics. This pact should involve other western countries, as well as many of the Middle Eastern governments that also have reasons to deter Iranian enrichment. It is absolutely necessary to pursue this because Iran's obtainment of nuclear weaponry could result in regional turmoil, further proliferation, and dissemination of weapons to terrorist groups. The implementation of this idea would require more research into the specific needs of the Iranian and the Middle Eastern economic systems as well as research into the limitations of renewable energy. This idea would also require significant diplomatic efforts over a relatively long period of time but is a necessary investment in American interests and national security in the long-term.

Keri Majikes is a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This article was first published by our partner Roosevelt Institute Campus Network in their "10 Ideas for Defense & Diplomacy" publication.

  • 11
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Talha Bin  Tariq

January 23, 2012

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thank-you for broaden the vision and perception regarding renewable energy ..
Renewable energies in areas where other sources are not available,, so that we could use plants and micro algae to produce diesel and biogas,,, in this way the people will get rid of bringing wood from mountains and jungles….. this idea is better in those area where facilities such as road, electricity, gas and others are not available specially northern areas of pakistan,,,


Regards,
Talha Bin Tariq
 
Ali  Fathollah-Nejad

January 23, 2012

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Keri,

Many thanks for reminding us of one of the various ways of dealing more intelligently with Iran. But in fact, the sanctions imposed on Iran constitute an obstacle to the realization of your indeed very important proposal.

As a German parliament and former UN biological weapons inspector, Jan van Aken, has reported after a September 2011 visit to a solar energy plant in Shiraz (Iran), a pilot project with a capacity of merely 250 kW, which is run by the governmental Renewable Energy Organization of Iran (SUNA), the sanctions regime does not allow any expansion to the infrastructure for such energies. Control technology from Siemens or special valves are among the indispensable items whose import is sanctioned. SUNA plans to build extending the Shiraz plant to a capacity of 500 kW as well as a new plant near the city of Yazd. Sanctions come into the play in two ways, which are also common to other issues: One, the needed product itself is banned from being supplied to Iran due to an alleged “dual use” nature; two, it foreign firms are deterred from engaging in any deals with Iran by the threat to be excluded from the often more important U.S. market. As a consequence of this, a Scandinavian manufacturer of wind turbines stopped the delivery of parts and a German solar supplier halted its dealings due the same kind of pressure, according to SUNA. If even there willing suppliers, a third problem affecting the construction of solar and wind energy plants arises from the sanctions on financial transactions on, which makes it almost impossible for small- or middle-sized enterprises to pay for the goods. Here, larger Iranian firms can find a way through a establishing subsidiaries abroad, but which cannot be done by smaller Iranian enterprises. The parliamentarian, a member of the German Bundestag’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, was hence asked by the Iranians to facilitate a technological cooperation between the two countries in the fields of wind and solar energies, including a regular exchange of scientific knowledge and the delivery of goods for use in alternative energy resources. The parliamentarian thus concludes: ‘It is absurd that the expansion of clean and militarily uncritical energy sources in Iran are thwarted by the nuclear [sic] sanctions.’ He therefore advocated a German–Iranian “solar dialogue”.

As a result, the now historically unique comprehensive sanctions regime imposed on Iran is a veritable obstacle for Iran to develop alternative, renewable resources of energy. Indeed a very disturbing picture, which should propel us to re-think the usefulness (and abuses) of sanctions in a fundamental way.

Best
Ali
 
Nemanja  Sukalo

January 24, 2012

  • 5
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Good afternoon,

I understand that you are an American and because of that your views are different than those from us, living closer to that region.

First thing I do not understand is how is Israel a key player in this delicate situation? How can a country that has good relations only with two neighbouring countries (Egypt and Jordan) exert any kind of influence in the region. Not to mention that since the fall of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, things have drastically changed with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. This movement is not to be underestimated, best proof was given to us during the Egyptian elections some time ago.
Jordan is facing a trumendous problem with Palestinian immigrants which have fled Palestine. This had created numerous problems between the ethnic Jordanians and ethnic Palestinians.
We all know what kind of relationship Israel has with Lebanon and Syria- not to mention the fall out between Tel Aiviv and Ankara.

Second of all, your argument of Iran getting nuclear weapons and thus destabilizing the region is wrong in my opinion. The same arguments were used back in the day when India and Pakistan got their own nuclear arsenal. Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of Iran getting nuclear weapons but I am also not in favor of jumping to conclusions just to prove a point you are defending (while at the same time ignoring some historic facts).

Your idea of making Iran a regional leader in green energies with the support of the US is idealist. First of all, you do not overcome 30 years of animosity in just one meeting. Second of all you are forgetting Russia and China. Two countries which are very close to Iran. Though Russia is not big on green energies, China is. In 2007 about 17% of China's energy came from renewable sources. For any other country that would not be a great percentage but understanding that we are talking about a country the size of China then it becomes a considerable percentage.
Iran has 72 million inhabitants making it a very lucrative market. Do you really think the Chinese government would be ready the leave the US government to take over Iran's green industry? I don't think so.

Once China satisfies its own needs it will look to export its technology abroad. What better than a country like Iran which is excluded from the rest of the Western world but that is in desperate need for renewable energies? Look at the Chinese investment in Serbia's thermal energy plant in Kostolac. Chinese offensive has already begun, just with small steps.

I think that the Western powers are already too late when it comes to securing Iran's market of renewable energies.
Iran is looking for alternatives and it is finding them every day in countries such as Russia and China (and their friends).
Still having a hard time believing it? Take a look at the deal between Antonov of Ukraine and Iran.

Western powers must change the views on the world. We are not living in the hegemonic world of the 1990s anymore. Time to embrace the new era.
 
Joshua  Clapp

January 24, 2012

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Keri, thanks for the piece. The proposal sounds very good as a policy proposal in comparison to sanctions. Nemanja makes a good point however that 30 years of animosity does not simply go away, but as you said, such an idea would take place over a longer time period.

Ali, thanks for the great comment. It sounds then as if the sanctions would also prevent small- and medium-sized Iranian companies from doing business in general, not just business related to renewable energy. Is that correct? By the way, do you have a link to the parliamentarian’s report you mentioned?

Regards,

Joshua
 
Nemanja  Sukalo

January 24, 2012

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Hello Joshua,

Of course they would not go away immediately, it will take years before we could have US-Iranian relations stabilized once again.
Unfortunately for the Western powers time is not a commodity they can afford. Russia and China are powerful countries, Brasil and India have also expressed their own interest in creating competition for the Western countries by becoming regional giants. Naturally for Brasil this task is much easier than for India (simply because Brasil is the only country in South America using its potential).
21st century will be a very difficult one for the West. Right after the Cold War they enjoyed pan-global hegemony to which they have become accustomed too fast. Already by the end of the 20th century we saw the deposition of Yeltsin in favor of a KGB agent- Putin. Not to mention that just a couple of years later China took the world by storm. Look at all the Chinese investment across Africa. For example all of the oil fields in Sudan are controlled by Chinese companies.

Turkey which is getting closer to the BRIC countries as we speak has also openly stated that it aims at becoming the leader of the Muslims in the Middle East. The world could see that they were serious at the time of the flotilla attacks.
Ankara and Tehran have become close friends over the past couple of years. So if we take Turkey's actions over the past couple of years we can see that it is drifting away from the West. What implications will that have for NATO? Let's not forget that Turkey is a country that is currently investing a lot in the construction of its own nuclear power plants. If the West allows for further rapprochement of Iran and Turkey they should also keep in mind that these two countries share a common border. All in all, the West should be really careful with Turkey in the future.

The dammage has been done, Iran has too many friends in the world today for the Western power to do much. What the West can do is try and reduce the dammage of their previous actions.
 
Ali  Fathollah-Nejad

January 24, 2012

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Joshua,

Many thanks for your comment.

Indeed, sanctions are - to put it in the briefest possible way - in fact illegalizing legal trade. I have studied the issue of the Iran sanctions in some detail and have published it here (in German): http://fathollah-nejad.com/index.php/2011/11/iran-sanktionsregime-i...
I have also written an op-ed in English (first published on Juan Cole's 'Informed Comment') summarizing the above findings, which are in a nutshell that prospects for democracy, socio-economic development and conflict resolution will suffer if the West continues to rely on sanctions: http://fathollah-nejad.com/index.php/2010/03/smart-sanctions-iran/

Last but not least, here's van Aken's original report (which considering many other civilian areas affected by the sanctions is no surprise at all): http://www.jan-van-aken.de/files/rb_iran_kurz.pdf

Best
Ali
Tags: | Iran Sanctions |
 
Keri Elise Majikes

January 24, 2012

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
All,

I will try to respond to these comments as holistically and concisely as possible.

Firstly, sanctions certainly are a huge obstacle to implementation of this idea. The organization I originally wrote this piece for had a very strict word limit, or else I would have tried to address this issue. These sanctions are a huge problem not only in the context of this idea, but as a whole. Sanctions punish the innocent people of a country, but rarely do anything to affect the politicians, who sanctions are meant to reach. The implementation of this plan would absolutely require a change in sanctions. As Ali mentioned, the severity and comprehensive nature of the sanctions against Iran would undoubtedly

One of the other issues brought up was the severity and critical nature of relations between Iran and the Western world. This is undoubtedly true and precisely the reason WHY this idea is absolutely necessary in the US. The United States no longer exists in a global hegemony where they/we can define the roles of every other country (if, in fact, it ever did.) If there is any way for the United States to correct this problem, economic partnerships are the answer (especially considering the attitudes of the current American congress.) Economic partnerships allow a conversation and dialogue to occur without directly addressing the very serious political rifts between the two parties. I will wholly admit, it is unlikely that Iran and the United States will be friendly at all in the next 100 years. However, this idea might be a first step and it is absolutely essential that the US pursue programs which encourage tolerance rather than total animosity.

I believe there is a great danger inherent to Iran gaining nuclear weapons not due to the possibility of Iranian nuclear attack, but because it would move the world backwards by encouraging many other countries to pursue nuclear weapons programs. Additionally, I am not confident in the Iranian government's ability to contain nuclear weapons and prevent non-state actors from obtaining the technology. Although such a situation seems very unlikely, it would be a logical option for a terrorist group.

As far as the political importance of Israel, I do not believe that this was important at all to the piece and personally, I am not invested in Israel's future. However, the United States is invested and has buried itself so heavily into Israel that if anything were to happen to it, that event would have reverberating consequences.
 
Joshua  Clapp

January 25, 2012

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Ali, thanks for the information and the links. I will have to take a good look at all of it - many of the specific details are new to me and I'm sure others as well.

Regards,

Joshua
 
Nemanja  Sukalo

January 27, 2012

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Keri,

I understand your point and I do support your argument that the US needs to increase its economic presence in Iran. Naturally this must occur through civilized dialogue without any mention of Iran's nucler programme. As long as the US insists on calling the Iranian nuclear programme a threat to the world, it will only encourage the Iranian government to pursue its nuclear programme in order to ensure security.

Several years ago when North Korea agreed to end its nuclear programme and allow foreign supervision of its facilities the Americans decided to conduct a military training with South Korea right on the border with North Korea. This caused outrage in Pyongyang leading the North Koreans to abandon all cooperation with the West. Armed with this experience the Americans should take a new, more intelligent approach to dealing with Iran.

At this point I believe that the US is in no position to consider victory over Iran. All it can do is to minimize the loss.
The Iranian parliament is set to discuss the discontinuation of its oil export to the EU before the deadline on July 1st. The EU had reacted by asking Iran to not do so for countries such as Greece or Italy that heavily rely on the Iranian oil. This only leads us to believe that the EU will not go through the implementation of additional sanctions against Iran because it has a lot to lose.
That would mean that the US administration would suffer a major blow in its quest for a nuclear free Iran.

Another aspect that we need to consider is that Iran does have alternatives to the Western world. For example, recently Iran and Iraq have signed an agreement to expand railway links between the two countries. It is important to understand that Iraq's President Maliki is a Shiite. This is an important factor at a time when Sunni Turkey is becoming more involved in Iraq's internal affairs.
Another American ally, Kuwait, had called for greater ties with Iran. Mind you, Kuwait is a member of NATO's ICT initiative.
After the Antonov deal, Ukrainian Inter Naft Gas Prom Pars Company was awarded a one-billion-dollar contract to develop three heavy crude oilfields in Iran.

Finally, trade between Iran and China grew by 55% in 2011 to a staggering $45 billion! Last year China increased its oil import from Iran by 30% regardless of Western pressure. Not to mention that over the last couple of years China had signed gas and oil contracts with Iran worth up to $40 billion!

Though Iran is going through an internal turmoil at the moment, it is far from being on its knees. The Western world is shooting itself in the foot by going against Iran in such a manner. It is only pushing it closer to Russia and China.

If things keep on developping like this we might see Iran gaining control over Iraq. Turkey can never have the full support of Iraq because of the Kurds in the north, giving Tehran a great advantage. With Shiites ruling Iraq again, Iran can use this religious link to promote itself- as is the case with the construction of railway links between the two countries.
With Iraq under Iran's influence we can see them gaining strong geopolitical advantage in the Middle East. They are already allied to the Syrian regime which gives them access to the Mediterranean, hence why they need the full support of Iraq in order to have direct access to Syria and its coast.
Linking Iran and Syria via Iraq is an important task for Tehran in order to avoid its cargo being confiscated by Western powers in the open seas. The explosion in Cyprus this past summer was when over 90 cargo containers with weapons exploded. These weapons were confiscated by the Americans as they were on their way from Iran to Syria.

These are just a few example of why the Americans need a new, shrewd policy towards Iran.
 
Keri Elise Majikes

January 28, 2012

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Nemanja,

I very much agree with many of the things you said (and, in fact, I think most Americans would also agree!) However, I do have a few points of contention. First of all, ANY nuclear program, including western ones, are a threat to the world. Unfortunately, many countries have gotten us into a quagmire of nuclear theory that requires more and more nuclear power. This is the truly threatening nature of any nuclear program.

Also, I'd like to point out that the EU actually did press sanctions on Iran earlier this week, from my understanding...

Finally, you mentioned that any change in US relations with Iran must occur without mention of their nuclear program. However, relationships between country do not occur in a vacuum- they depend wholly on domestic politics. Not addressing the possibility of Iranian nuclear weaponry would be simply impossible for America. Additionally, accepting increased Iranian nuclear capability would present an even more negative view of the US to countries who are being encouraged to reduce their stash of nuclear weapons.

Regardless, the United States (and now, the western world,) needs to change their policies. It is simply unfeasible in the long term to isolate an important country like Iran. Moreover, it is immoral to impose sanctions when they are wholly ineffective and punish only innocent people.
 
Paul-Robert  Lookman

January 29, 2012

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The author’s proposal is interesting in that it is different from the current rhetoric between the parties and offers an alternative to armed conflict. However, it would require engagement with Iran, diplomacy, negotiations, which recent US legislation has expressly banned. Moreover, the proposal does not seem to address the real problem.

In my view nuclear weapons are not the issue. The US withdrawal from Iraq has enabled Iran to expand its influence in the region. What is at stake is weakening the Iranian regime to the point of implosion and the installation of a puppet regime “friendly” the West. Without Russia’s and China’s co-operation and Japan and other Asian countries successfully demanding an opt-out, the sanctions do not seem very effective.

The US seems to realize that it has to look for other routes. It does not want to intervene militarily, so the only way to break the deadlock is a negotiated deal between the parties. There are already signs that that’s what the US pursues, probably behind closed doors.
 
Mustafa Y. CELIK

January 30, 2012

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
If no new energy production methods are discovered, eventually all countries inevitably have to possess nuclear power plants. Therefore most of the discouraging policies which have been put into effect over the last few decades are likely to have to phase out sooner or later.

Renewable energy sources seem to be promising but they presently remain to be supplementary only in part and even when fully utilized, they are unlikely to make up for the energy deficits which are likely to come about almost in every country worldwide.

I think the best route to do away with the frightening possibilities of abuse is to undertake intensive research to develop newer, more feasible and also more environment-friendly energy production processes.

Obviously if such alternates had been available, no country would be likely to be interested in investing in nuclear power plants.

I am afraid that the proponents of more peaceful co-existence have to live with this extra source of headache for some years to come unless suddenly a relieving news comes out of some research laboratory.

 
Nemanja  Sukalo

January 30, 2012

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Mr Lookman,

The United States have to understand that the way things are now only prove to us that they have lost the fight with Iran.
First of all, two expensive wars and an extremly bad economic situation are the main problems of the US government today. Due to these they can not engage in any expensive actions, be it military or diplomatic.

Even if the two sides decide to negotiate the US has to accept a few things:

1. Iran might eventually become a friendly state towards the US but they will never return to the pre-1979 period.

2. Iran will always be closer to India, Russia and China. These three will ensure that the current regime stays in place. Best proof is the actions taken by Beijing and New Delhi after the EU sanctions were announced. This means that the US could only be a 'second-level' friend of the Iranian government.

3. Iran will keep on spreading its influence in Iraq and it will keep on supporting the regime in Syria.

4. Iran will oppose the spread of NATO (ICT) in the Gulf region as a security measure.

If the US does indeed support further influence of Iran in Iraq what will happen to the already shaky relations between Washington and Ankara?
Relations between Turkey and the US have been falling apart in recent times, especially after the Armenian genocide recognition by the US and the whole natural ressource drilling off the coast of Cyprus.

However, for the US having Iran on its side will prove to be more valuable than having Turkey. This is simply because Iran has great influence over both Iraq (including the Kurdish region) and Afghanistan. The United States could use closer ties with Iran to shift some of the responsibilities in those two countries on Tehran.

However, if there is indeed a rapprochement between the US and Iran, this could push Turkey closer to Russia and China. What would happen then? That would mean that Russia and China would have both Turkey and Iran on their side. All this provoked by bad diplomatic actions by certain Western powers.

Can the West afford that? I think not.
 

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org


Community

You are in the archive of all articles published on atlantic-community.org from 2007 to 2012. To read the latest articles from our open think tank and network with community members, please go to our new website