Unfortunately i have not been able to go down to the city to attend the NPT Prepcom, but at least the Secretariat has done a good job of getting relevant documentation up on the web quickly. Right now I am contemplating the small stack of working papers produced by the Islamic Republic of Iran. I haven’t gone through them thoroughly yet, that is the project for the next few hours followed by some thinking about the intent and implications, but from a quick initial glance it looks like they are attempting to put others on the back foot and shape the direction of the review process in such a way as to minimize any possible pressure that the United States, and others, might attempt to put on them.
The approach they are taking (focusing on a lack of progress in nuclear disarmament, Israeli nuclear weapons, and the right of all NPT members to undertake the full range of peaceful activities countries) is a seemingly reasonable one and is made easier by the interest of many states party to the NPT, and indeed many NGOs, in interpreting the treaty in such a way as to emphasize Article VI (disarmament undertaking of nuclear weapons states) and Article IV (the right to have full access to nuclear energy).
At the same time however the Iranian’s might actually be shooting themselves in the toe (not the foot though) through their use of an all too common, over-the-top style of language that is more appropriate to propaganda broadcast and election campaigns rather than somewhat colourless environment of UN meetings. My suspicion that they are not actually shooting themselves in the foot with this language comes out of the expectation that they are not actually aiming this language at a Western audience that is unlikely to be impressed by such bald language. Instead I expect it is aimed at the larger community of nations represented in the somewhat anachronistic Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Many of these countries are likely to support the Iranian position out of sympathy or perceived self-interest. After all, by now many on all sides of the nonproliferation debate must see that Iran is indeed the proverbial camel’s nose. Where they differ is over the nature and value of what is still outside the tent.
Anyway more tomorrow when I have digested these statements and working papers.