Related Resources

After a brief introduction by Ambassador David Mack, Ambassador Vimont stressed how the international focus on the Iran nuclear issue has influenced all facets of Iran’s relationships with its neighbors.

In 2003, Vimont was at the forefront of European attempts to negotiate concretely with Iran. While these French-led negotiation efforts ultimately failed, Vimont admitted blame could be assigned to the Europeans, the Iranians, or both. Nonetheless, the current group of five including France, the US, Russia, and China has successfully set up sanctions and proposals for serious cooperation, trying to keep “the door open…to convince (Iran) to show some opening.” Vimont also noted that all Security Council resolutions France has supported concerning Iran have been adopted by consensus.

Vimont elaborated that, despite positive international cooperation, there has been no progress on resolving international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. He commented that a third resolution on sanctions was being discussed in New York as he spoke. Although he expressed the obstacles France faces to reach unanimous agreement about how to deal with Iran, he stressed the importance of showing Tehran a united international community requesting immediate suspension of its nuclear program.

Despite genuine diplomatic efforts by several nations, Iran has refused to suspend its nuclear program for even a few days. Still, Vimont believes sanctions are having a slow effect. Informal sanctions, such as reduced banking with Iran, are more effective than formal sanctions by governments and resolutions by the UN Security Council.

Vimont offered two explanations for the slow pace of the sanctions and negotiation process. Firstly, Iran has retained a continuous regime since 1979, despite major changes in neighboring governments and Western military presence near its borders. Perceiving threats, Iran has a very strong will to take bold initiatives asserting its position and increasing its regional influence. As an example of Iran’s increased control, Vimont cited Iran’s support for Hizbullah during the 2006 July War in Lebanon. Despite differences between the Sunni and Shi‘ite community, Iran was able to rally support for the Iranian position and Hizbullah’s side in Sunni-strongholds like Cairo. Secondly, Vimont believes the development of a nuclear program is a national goal shared by many Iranians. Because there has been a popular interest in nuclear activities since the days of the Shah, the West has failed to divide purported moderates from radicals on the nuclear issue. However, Vimont noted that while the Shah was talking about a civilian program, modern moderates and radicals might differ on the goals of nuclear power and the tactics with which to achieve it.

Looking to the future, Vimont suggested the West clearly dichotomize the issue of nonproliferation from the issue of Iran’s efforts to increase its regional influence. With regard to the nuclear issue, Vimont believes it is important to remain firm on sanctions and the demand for nuclear suspension, despite lack of instant progress for sanctions. The West must clearly offer to support a more influential role for Iran in the international community, in exchange for Iran’s flexibility and suspension of its nuclear program. Iran must be convinced that nuclear suspension is an insurmountable precondition to political dialogue.

Vimont concluded with an observation from his personal experience with Iranians. “It is usually at the last minute before midnight that you get a deal.” With the persistent firmness of the international community, Vimont sincerely hopes that the world will finally come to agreement with Iran.