WASHINGTON, June 2 (UPI) -- A top State Department official said if the international community fails to convince Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program, it will dramatically undermine the 40-year-old Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, an international agreement credited with preventing new states from developing nuclear weapons.
The treaty has faced significant challenges in the last 10 years -- including the surprise demonstration of nuclear capabilities by India and then Pakistan, North Korea's avowed weapon program, and the United States' agreement last year to help India's civilian nuclear program despite its violations of the NPT.
But, said Andrew Semmel, deputy assistant secretary for nuclear non-proliferation policy and negotiations, a nuclear-armed Iran could spell the end of the program.
"If Iran does go down that track, that's the occasion you'll see the unraveling of the NPT," Semmel said Thursday at a forum organized by the United National Association in Washington.
It will show that despite international economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, or the world's inability to agree on a course of action to counter Iran's bid to join the nuclear club, the NPT is ultimately unenforceable.
Semmel's comments come one day after U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered a new deal to Iran: If it suspends its uranium enrichment program, the United States would join France, Germany and Britain in negotiating directly with Teheran and support an undisclosed package of inducements.
Enriched uranium is a critical ingredient for a nuclear warhead.
Many experts, including Western diplomats who have advised the U.S. government, have said that what Iran has wanted all along is to negotiate directly with the United States for reasons of pride, prestige, and efficacy. Washington has not had diplomatic relations with Tehran since the revolution of 1979 and the taking of hundreds of American hostages at the embassy.
Semmel said the United States' offer to negotiate now was not a capitulation to Iranian brinksmanship, but a well-contemplated next step in an escalating series of offers.
"We don't lay everything out at the outset," Semmel said. "In a game of poker you keep certain things reserved.
"It's been under discussion for some time. It has not bubbled up in the last week. This discussion has been going on for a considerable time in the (Bush) administration. The game plan or strategy on the U.S. approach to dealing with this is to engage in incremental steps over time," he said. "Part of gradualism is to try to increase the pressure ... The idea was to keep that incrementalism moving, eventually going to the United Nations Security Council."
Semmel said the United States heeded the advice of the European countries directly negotiating with Iran, the United Kingdom, France and Germany.
"We've obviously been listening to advice from the European countries. If we are going to engage in draconian measures like international sanctions, then we ought to make sure we have explored every conceivable diplomatic option out there," he said. "If Iran reneges the offer yesterday, then it seems to me we are in a stronger position to say we tried one more option, went the additional mile -- whatever metaphor you want to use."
He acknowledged that any delay in bringing Iran to heel on its uranium enrichment program carries with it inherent dangers. Every day that passes is another opportunity for the country to stockpile enriched uranium and to work out the engineering challenge of producing a large amount at once.
"Time is of the essence," he said. "The longer this protracts the likelihood is the Iranian scientists will develop the kinds of knowledge (they need)... Any time a centrifuge breaks down they learn how to fix it ... You can't easily eliminate the knowledge of how to do things."
The question is whether the Bush administration's decision to wait so long before it offered the carrot of direct talks unnecessarily and dangerously stretched the amount of time Iran has had for its development program.
"I think there is a premium on doing it early," Semmel said, " but on the backside there is some time. It will take a long time before they get an industrial scale capability.
"There is some time, but I think with every passing day the situation becomes more precarious," he said.
Iran is aware that time is on its side, and he believes that is why this current tussle over uranium enrichment has been brewing for two years.
"I think their strategy is definitely to drag it out," he said.
The U.S. decision to offer direct talks as a last resort may teach other countries that want prestige and a seat at the table with Washington a lesson. It is one the situation with North Korea and India also suggests: develop a nuclear weapon, and the United States will engage with you.
Semmel is not sure that will be the outcome.
"We'll see what the lesson is as this unfolds. We'll see what the end product is when the situation ends."
He suggested that diplomacy has a long way to go yet, and seemed to dismiss the possibility of military action to resolve the problem.
"We want to be very careful and turn over every rock to be sure Iran comes to negotiations," he said. "We want to make sure we have the right information in Iran. One of the lessons is to be very careful, more careful than we were on Iraq."
