- FEBRUARY 9, 2010
-
The real reason Iran wants nukes
Posted By Francesco Bastagli
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 9:04 PM
Share
Right or wrong, Iran's motives will hold the key to successful talks.
By Francesco Bastagli
In their talks today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama will no doubt have discussed the uncomfortable subject of Iran. Israel views that country's nuclear program as an existential threat; rumors abound that military action might be on the table. The United States firmly opposes Iran's nuclear ambitions, but after decades of estrangement, the United States and Iran look closer to sitting together at the negotiating table than at any point since 1979.
If the United States wants negotiations to work, there is one key prerequisite: Each side must understand the expectations of the other. What the United States wants from Iran is clear: a halt to its nuclear program. But what is on Tehran's mind? Perceived as a major menace in Washington and Tel Aviv, Tehran sees itself under attack. To understand Iran's expectations, just turn the Western perspective around 180 degrees.
First, the United States will have to grasp why the nuclear program is so popular on the streets of Iran. If Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's domestic economic and social policies have alienated many, his foreign policy enjoys wide support. In light of the quiet, but intense competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia for leadership in the Persian Gulf, the nuclear program strikes a nationalist chord. Rhetoric denouncing Israel is of little interest to the man in the street, but it helps distract from festering problems at home. That benefit goes both ways; both Iran and Israel may be using their mutual enmity to divert attention from tough domestic choices. One hears often in Tehran that the Israeli government is Ahmadinejad's best ally -- and vice versa.
History is also indispensable in understanding Tehran's mood. Foreign meddling in Iran dates back to the early 19th century, so it is hardly unexpected that requests for noninterference are a recurrent theme in the country's negotiations with the West. Take the last formal agreement between Iran and the United States, the Algiers accords of January 1981. The terms for the release of U.S. hostages -- accused by Tehran of spying -- included a pledge that the United States would not intervene in Iran's internal affairs. It is hard to argue that this pledge was honored. Encouraged by the United States and bankrolled by the Saudis, then Iraqi President Saddam Hussein began his war against Iran around the time of the accords. The conflict lasted eight years and took 1 million lives. For many Iranian families, the wounds of that conflict are still open.
Meanwhile, U.S. trade and financial sanctions began with the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and since then, U.S. intelligence has allegedly helped prop up rebel groups in the Baluchistan, Kurdistan, and oil-rich Khuzestan regions of Iran. Iranians widely believe such allegations, especially as U.S. soldiers fight in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan and U.S. allies Israel and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons.
Still, on the ground in Iran, the mood is anything but warlike. During a recent southward journey from Tehran, along a road dotted with antiaircraft outposts to protect the Natanz nuclear facilities, I heard travelers on a bus repeat the official line about Iran's sovereign right to pursue a nuclear program for peaceful purposes. Only with a bit of prompting did they question the credibility of current nuclear countries acting as judges of who should and should not have nuclear weapons. To them, the only answer was a nuclear-free Middle East.
Iran stands both insecure and defiant. As Western capitals talk about the containment of Tehran, Iranians of all walks of life have told me that it is the United States and its allies that need containing. They see Iran's behavior as reactive rather than aggressive. Support for Hezbollah and Hamas is Iran's "forward front," keeping the opponent engaged in more distant theaters. The Iranian nuclear program, if it is indeed intended to produce a bomb, is perceived at home as a deterrent in a region where nuclear weapons are in Israel's hostile hands.
What matters is not whether these Iranian perceptions are justified. Progress on Iran's nuclear adventure will prove elusive if these views are ignored, and if noninterference and mutual respect do not figure in the talks. Credible regional security guarantees must also be factored early on into the negotiating process. No matter how problematic a grand bargain with Iran looks, anything less may turn out to be no bargain at all.
Francesco Bastagli served as the United Nations' resident coordinator and the United Nations Development Program's resident representative in Iran from 1999 to 2002.
Photo: ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images
ahmadinejad has done nothing to assure the international community that he is not pursuing nuclear weapons, and that he is a man of peace. Instead, he has made angry and aggressive statement after statement. Whatever his reasons for a nuke, he has done nothing to alleviate fears of his foreign policy - and this is the problem. That Israel has a fear of an aggressive adversary, is legitimate. That adversary, rather than Israel, needs to convince us in the international community, that he is not seeking bombs, and he needs to change his rhetoric. We don't care what Ahmadinejad's reasons for a bomb are - what matters is his conduct, and the threats he is making. Even if his fears were founded, his reaction isn't helping. So let's stop putting the blame on Isreal, and have an evenhanded approach to Iran - demand that it approach peace constructively.
Iran's nuclear program has nothign to do with Ahmadinejad
IRan's nuclear program started under the Shah with the encouragment and support of the United States because it makes economic sense, and has nothing to do with your bogeyman Ahmadinejad who isn't even in charge of the program. Incidentally, the United States has explicitly threatened Iran with nuclear first strikes and furthermore, the United States was directly complicit in arming Iraq with WMDs that were used against Iran, causing over 60,000 deaths with chemical weapons. Who is the real threat to whom?
But while we're at it, this is what Ahmadinejad told NBC anchor Brian Willians in July 2008:
"Again, did nuclear arms help the Soviet Union from falling and disintegrating? For that matter, did a nuclear bomb help the U.S. to prevail inside Iraq or Afghanistan, for that matter? Nuclear bombs belong to the 20th century. We are living in a new century...Nuclear energy must not be equaled to a nuclear bomb. This is a disservice to the society of man."
And what has the U.S. done to assure Iran that it will not be attacked on bugus grounds like Iraq was? How would you feel if both your neighbors' houses had been broken into?
As the article states, the West needs to listen to concerns of Iran and not dictate terms as if they were dealing with a child.
. . . in this article is Israel's nuclear arsenal and its ability to use it. No rational and responsible leader can ignore such an existential threat, and Iran's motivation to acquire a deterrent should be obvious to anyone.
Once Iran has a few deliverable nukes, Israel can't growl so effectively any more with its hand on its nuclear holster. That's its real purpose in trying to get the world to squelch Iran's program -- omnipotence is habit-forming. The old excuses don't wash. Israel's nukes are useless against the real threats it faces -- close in insurgencies in Gaza, South Lebanon and maybe eventually in the West Bank.
The Israelis know that Iran would not invite nuclear vaporization by attacking, any more than Europe is really afraid that Tehran will nuke its best business partners, even if it had the missiles to do so.
One good sign: an administration official said, for the first time, that Israel should sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This was a lower-level official but could be repeated at high levels if necessary.
So let's stop putting the blame on Isreal, and have an evenhanded approach to Iran - demand that it approach peace constructively.
An even-handed approach! Good! That should involve making the entire middle east a nuclear-free zone. Israel and all arab nations would allow inspections to show that they are not building nuclear weapons or the facilities that would let them build nuclear weapons.
What's more even-handed than that?
The fallacy of "subverted support"
The author is conflating a nuclear energy program with "nukes" -- a common deliberate obfuscation intended to gloss over the fact that there's absolutely no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.
There is absolutely no evidence that Iran "wants nukes" either. In fact, there's good evidence it doesn't: Short of giving up its nuclear program, IRan has offered to place additional restrictions on its civilian, NPT-compliant, IAEA-monitored nuclear program to further address even the hypothetical possibility that the program could be secretly used to make bombs at some indefinite point in the future as widely alleged. For example, they have offered to open the program to multinational participation (an offer endorsed by a special IAEA committee and US experts too) in addition to offering to place even stricter monitoring on their nuclear program than they are legally obliged to allow. Other countries with similar nuclear technology such as Argentina and Brazil have not accepted similar arrangements. Egypt flatly refuses to sign the Additional Protocol despite being caught conducting secret nuclear experiments.
And yet here we are talking about how Iran must want nukes. This is the fallacy of "subverted support" -- trying to explain a phenomenon which does not exist in the first place.
Incidentally, Iran was the first country to raise the issue of creating a nuclear weapons free zone in the Mideast (5 years later, the Shah and Egypt sponsored a UN resolution to that effect in 1974) and the current Iranian government has supported that measure too.
And yet here we are talking about how Iran must want nukes. This is the fallacy of "subverted support" -- trying to explain a phenomenon which does not exist in the first place.
Well, but you have no proof that iran doesn't want nukes.
Look at israel. They had an experimental reactor they said was aimed toward civilian nuclear power. The USA told them not to make nukes, and they promised they didn't want to and they wouldn't. They agreed to have 2 inspections a year so we could see they weren't building nukes. So we had one inspection where they showed us just what they wanted to and nothing more. We called off the second inspection because by that time they had nukes.
Given their own history, how could they possibly believe that iran isn't hellbent on getting bombs and lying about it? It's what they would do themselves. It's what they did do themselves.
Israel and the USA cannot accept iranian nuclear power plants unless iran first proves they have no intention of ever having nukes, and second we have complete proof that the nuclear power plants will never ever be of any use toward building nukes.
Don't try to confuse us with the facts. There's nothing iran can say or do to influence this. Our minds are made up.
Incidentally, Iran was the first country to raise the issue of creating a nuclear weapons free zone in the Mideast (5 years later, the Shah and Egypt sponsored a UN resolution to that effect in 1974) and the current Iranian government has supported that measure too.
Of course they want a nuclear-free zone. As it is now, israel is the only one with nukes. Make a nuclear-free zone and israel would lose an advantage. As it is now, israel can nuke or threaten to nuke any nation in the middle east and they can't do anything about it. What will we give israel to make up for losing that? It would have to be an awfully big prize to make up for losing something so important. Surely $100 billion wouldn't be enough.
How about this counterproposal. Make the middle east a nuclear-free zone except for israel. Let israel inspect anywhere they want anywhere in the middle east to make sure they aren't secretly trying to build nukes, and let israel bomb anywhere they suspect there might be nukes being made but it would be inconvenient to inspect first, and give israel the official right to nuke anybody in the middle east they feel like, guided by the famous israeli senses of justice, honor, mercy, and humor. I think you could get israel to agree to this deal.
Facts are inconvenient things!
The difference between Israel and Iran is that Iran is a signatory to the NPT and its nuclear program is subject to inspections specifically designed and intended to catch diversions to nonpeaceful uses. The IAEA has repeatedly stated for the last 7 years that there has been no such diversion by Iran. That's why the US argues that IRan seeks a nuclear weapons "capability" -- a nonsense charge, since any country with a modicum of nuclear know-how can be similarly accused of seeking a "capability" to make nukes (Japan, Australia, BRazil, Argentina, etc.)
But yes facts do tend to get in the way, eh?
Facts only get in the way when you let them get in the way.
Regardless of what you say, russia and china and the EU have agreed that iran's nuclear program is a problem. They have agreed to sanctions against iran, and when the USA or israel makes threats no one says they'll defend iran. (Though russia did sell iran some modern antiaircraft systems.)
There are no sanctions against israel and no discussion of it. No one threatens to bomb israel, or even bomb israel's definitely-existing nuclear program. No one threatens israel with any consequences if israel bombs any neighbors, including iraq and iran. No nation that the USA considers reputable expresses any worries whatsoever about israel's existing nuclear missiles, which by some reports have a range that can reach western europe.
So no, facts can be inconvenient but only when they actually happen to be inconvenient. Often they can be ignored.
The real issue is monopoly of the fuel cycle
It doesn't matter that there's no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran because "nukes" are a pretext for another policy agenda altogether: monopolization of the nuclear fuel cycle.
For more than 30 years, there has been a conflict between developing and developed nations over the control of the process to manufacture nuclear reactor fuel. The developed states have been trying to prevent others from obtaining that technology, under the guise of non-proliferation. Various proposals have been put forth to restrict enrichment of uranium to a few states who will then have a monopoly over the only energy source of the near future. Most Americans never hear about this conflict but Developing nations naturally object to such arrangements:
The Final Document of the United Nations General Assembly resolution S-10/2 which was adopted at the 27th plenary meeting of the tenth special session on 30 June 1978 stated in paragraph 69:
"Each country's choices and decisions in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy should be respected without jeopardizing its policies or international cooperation agreements and arrangements for peaceful uses of nuclear energy and its fuel-cycle policies".
This language was reiterated in the final document of the 1980 NPT Review Conference and has been consistently reiterated in every Review Conference since then, including the 1995 Review Conference , the 2000 NPT Review Conference and in the Final Document of the 10th Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2002.
MORE HERE: http://tinyurl.com/q2osfp
Does this point really even need to be made in this publication? It worries me to think that anyone of any influence would need to open a magazine to realize that the Iranians feel legitimately threatened. How could one justify the Cold War arms race and not understand why the Iranians are seeking these weapons?
Are they in fact seeking nukes? What's your evidence? Everyone is saying "IRanian nukes" as easily as everyone once assumed "IRaqi WMDs" existed -- repetition does not make something true.
The Iranians say that they're not about to get into a nuclear arms race with technologically-superior superpowers nor do they want to spark a nuclear arms race in the Mideast -- so nukes would NOT help them.
Important Analysis of an Israeli Strike on Iran
OliveTreeNews has extensive analysis of a potential Israeli strike on Iran featured on their website. I found it to be very informative and useful in gaining a broader perspective in relation to the expansiveness and risks associated with such an operation. You definately should check out their coverage to gain the necessary knowledge - OliveTreeNews
Iran is a religiously run fundamentalist state with it's supreme authority being a cleric. Theocracies believe they have God on their side and hence the possible development of nuclear weapons could quite possibly only embolden these fanatics. This should be of serious concern to the world. Having said that, the real question we need to ask is, when Iran does get the bomb (and they will), will self preservation trump religious fanaticism in the face of what would mostly likely happen to Iran if they were to ever use a nuke? What a world we live in where we have been forced to choose which religiously extremist state we will support, Iran or Saudi Arabia, as the two play out their quest for dominance in the region. Our constant meddling in this area of the world for the last 80 years has created this mess. Perhaps we should inform all parties involved that we will no longer send any aid to the area (especially military) until they commit to peaceful coexistence. It's time to stop taking sides and recognize that all parties must be a part of the solution.
Ummm considering that George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld regularly spouted about the Bible when they invaded IRaq, and that Israel claims God has given it sovereignty over Greater Israel, I don't think Iran and Saudi Arabia are the only religious nuts around.
Iran is a danger to western interests in middle east. It is supporting not only Hezbollah but also Taliban. Arabs do feel existential threat from Iran. In fact, a much larger threat as compared to Israel.
Iran is a danger to western interests in middle east.
What western interests in the middle east is iran a danger to? US oil companies are doing OK. US craft companies that import sheepskin and camel hair etc are doing fine.
McDonalds franchises are doing OK in egypt, jordan, lebanon, pakistan, qatar, saudi arabia, UAE, etc.
What western interests are you referring to?
It is supporting not only Hezbollah but also Taliban.
That's no big deal. A couple years ago we were saying that Ba'athists in iraq were The Enemy. We chased them all over anbar and we were a bit perturbed that saudi arabia was secretly supporting them. But then we changed our mind and we started supporting them too. They changed their name and some of their policies and we were fine with them.
We're trying to repeat that strategy in afghanistan too. When we get the bigger part of Taliban to switch sides, we won't be mad at them any more. They'll change some policies and we'll accept them.
Not all that long ago we were perturbed at india. They wanted to be nonaligned but we told them they had to choose, and we gradually decided they'd chosen the russians so we gave considerable support to our pakistani allies. But now we're getting all perturbed at pakistan and we're talking to our good friend india for help.
As soon as we broker a peace deal for israel, hamas will be our client just like egypt was when we arranged that peace. We won't object to other nations being friends with hamas then. Iran is just a little early, no big deal. Similarly, the only reason we're upset at hezbollah is that israel keeps antagonising them. As soon as that's over we can be friendly with hezbollah.
You're acting like it's a big deal that iran is friendly with a few little groups that we're temporarily on the outs with. It really isn't very important. We're temporarily on the outs with iran too, but again, all we have to do is get a peace for israel and we can go back to being friends with iran.
Arabs do feel existential threat from Iran. In fact, a much larger threat as compared to Israel.
You think so? Why do you think that? If it's true it's no big deal, it might help us arrange a peace for israel since they aren't the big threat. Then we can work on peace between our arab friends and our persian friends too.
Unless of course we don't want peace.
There's no evidence that Iran supports the Taliban (in fact Iran almost went to war with them when the Taliban murdered several Iran diplomats at a consulate in Mazar Sharif) and Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization that has wide popularity among the Lebanese people.
January/February 2010
-
Cover Story
-
Dispatch
-
Feature
(20)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE