A genuine warning

" What I think many of us are concerned about is that we stumble into active hostilities with Iran without having aggressively pursued diplomatic approaches, without the American people understanding exactly what's taking place "

Sen. Barack Obama

A must watch video

I would encourage anyone genuinely committed to forming an objective and independent opinion about Iran's nuclear program to watch this video, here.

Breach of diplomatic immunity by the US: A dangerous precedent

When a group of Iranian students took over the American Embassy in 1979, the International Community was quick to react: Two Security Council resolutions (S/RES/457, S/RES/461), a couple of Presidential Statements were immediately adopted at the UN and every Western country almost instantaneously expressed its outrage at this unacceptable breach of International law and the concept of diplomatic immunity. Even though the act of seizing the embassy was in itself conducted by private actors in the heat of the Revolution, the newly born government of Iran was urgently asked to "release immediately the personnel of the Embassy of the United States of America being held in Tehran, to provide them protection and to allow them to leave the country". Fair enough.

Today, the US military impudently raided the premises of the Iranian Consulate office in the city of Arbil in Iraq, abducted the 6 diplomats present inside the building and took them to an undisclosed location. The raid took place, not by an independent group of any sort, but by soldiers in American uniform, taking direct order from the US military. Now, my guess is that the Iranian people - along with civil societies around the world for that matter - would at least expect the International Community to condemn this indisputable violation of International law and denounce United State's unacceptable breach of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to which it is party. It is at least expected that the same members of the Security Council whom in 1979 adopted the above mentioned resolutions, now show some degree of decency and express as much as a "concern" over what could become a dangerous precedent in this "war against terrorism". Let's wait and see, but something's telling me it's not going to happen. Rather, it looks like the Snowballs, Napoleons and Squealers of this new "Animal farm" are rewriting the commandments of International law to change the principle of "All diplomats have immunity" to "All diplomats have immunity, but some have more immunity than others".

Reader contribution

Two of the readers have left interesting comments about my first post. Both of them have very articulately presented the two confronting views that exist about Iran in just a few lines. The first one argues that Iran is indeed a dangerous and perturbing element within the International community (based on a few common assumptions), and the second one provides a counter argument explaining why this is not the case.

I'll copy-paste these two comments here as I'm sure you'll find them interesting too:

Anonymous said...

While I can appreciate your view, I feel like your arguments under number 4 are a tough sell.

Maybe Iran has not waged war on other countries, but the current regime is also not passively minding its own business. They fund radicals in Lebanon, and, of course with the situation in Iraq, Iran has great influence in that country. Would any country in Iran's place use their position to their advantage in Iraq? Absolutely, but to say that they are not offensively active is hard for me to agree with.

Plus, while Ahmadinejad's comments may have been wrongly translated, it's still hard to conclude Israel being "eliminated from the pages of history" is a peaceful goal. If I told my neighbor that I hope to eliminate them from the pages of history, they would probably consider those fighting words. Especially, when you place that in the context of Ahmadinejad's actions and others statements, and the horrible conference he organized.

January 8, 2007 9:14 AM

Anonymous said [responded]...

The prior poster is missing a key point and is distorting 2 others:

1) Ahmadinejad's statement(s) is a call for regime change. A position held by many not radical supporters of peace, non-violence and human rights—NOT to say Ahnadinejad is one of these people just to say this is NOT a radical stance given Israel’s human rights and colonial record.
More Importantly, regime change is the same position the US holds towards Iran. The difference being Ahmadinejad has not threatened military force to do so. Instead he has threatened, god forbid, elections. And while the recent conference is offensive and stupid It doesn’t immediately translate into a military policy. Especially because an Iranian President has little power to being with.

2) It is highly questionable to call Hezbollah, Iran’s ally in Lebanon, radicals. While it is true they have some less than progressive social agendas and they have refused to disarm, Hezbollah is also equally an advocate of the poor and disenfranchised, has participated in the mainstream political system and maintains weapons largely because Israel continues to both occupy and threaten Lebanese territory. More Importantly, Hezbollah are no less oppressive and violent than the other factions supported by the US and Israel. Western powers support a wealthy minority that maintains economic and political control only because of built-in sectarian preferences in the constitution, which are hardly democratic. Iran’s sympathy’s for Hezbollah are part out of a shared religious identity but also out of an inherent anti-imperial world view—hence Iran’s growing relationship with Hugo Chavez. Also Iran has often acted as a moderating force on Hezbollah, who as of late have used the “radical” tactic of, god forbid, peaceful demonstration to further democratize Lebanon.

3) It is again misleading to call Iran’s support of factions in Iran offensive. The US is a country that openly called Iran “evil,” officially endorsed regime change and to this ends has finical supported, not the progressive pro-democracy movement in Iran but, a group of ex-monarchists and an Islamo-Marxist cult officially recognized as a terrorist organization. This same US (offensively) invaded Iran’s neighbor Iraq, forcibly imposed a non-elected government and destabilized the country. Only after the Shi’a forces, close to Iran, pushed for election did the US hold them (note: the Iraqi Shi’a are not controlled by Iran). And eventually Iraq spiraled into civil war. I would argue any country is acting defensively when it attempts to make sure a geo-political crisis, like the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, did turn into a crisis for itself (note: the burden of refugees and spill over violence).

January 8, 2007 7:18 PM

The "International community" from an Iranian perspective

Imagine you're an ordinary Iranian living in Iran. You have a family to support, children to send to school, mortgage to pay, bills to clear and a life to live, like any american or european man/woman currently reading these lines. You come home from a hard day at work and upon turning on your TV, you learn that the "International community", through the UN Security Council, has adopted a Resolution imposing sanctions on your country for its nuclear program. Sanctions that could possibly affect every single plans you have for your future: "It's just the first step in a series of measures we intend to take" - says the Interntional Community-"If Iran does not comply with our demands, further appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII will be adopted" (Resolution 1737).

Your relationship with your own government is not that lovy-dovy and your rulers have a long history of oppressing you, so the first reaction that a person living in a democratic country would expect you to have would be to say: "They [my rulers] must have done something illegal to deserve this and the International community is legitimate enough to coerce them to comply". But surprisingly - to the astonishment of your counterparts in the Free world - you feel like reacting very differently to this news.

Indeed, this new Resolution, when put in a historical context, has a whole different meaning for you.

Listening to the news, you can't help but to remember the way that same "International community" had moved to punish your fathers in 1951 when they were- very legitimately and peacefully - attempting to nationalize Iran's oil industry. At that time, the "International Community", in another similar document, had coincidently dubbed your fathers' effort to regain their sovereignty over their national resources as a "threat to peace". And the same democratic countries that are now pushing your government to stop its nuclear program had considered that the nationalization of your resources "had created such a threat to peace and seucrity that the [Security] Council's consideration for the matter was essential". (S/2358). So why trust them now? You ask yourself.

Then you recall 1953. The year the International Community stayed silent and did not move an inch to intervene when the UK and the US - obviously vexed by the nationalists in power - organized a military coup d'état to overthrow the democratic government of the then Prime minister Dr. Mossadegh. At that time the "International Community" not only stayed indifferent to the coup - which was a blatant violation of the UN Charter - but generously provided its support to the restored dictator who took over and brutalized your people for the next three decades to come. No questions asked.

Then you remember the days of the Iran-Iraq war. You remember that day, not so far away, when Saddam Hussein launched a military attack on your soil and occupied 30, 000 sq. miles of your land in 1980. You remember the civil bombardments, the midnight red sirens, those damp bunkers you had to spend your childhood under, those damn late phone calls everybody was afraid to take in fear of hearing a sad voice announcing the death of a loved one. But, at that time, the "International Community" did not bother to issue as much as a simple statement of condemnation either. Back then, Saddam Hussein was its "strategic ally" and apparently no one in the "Free World" wanted to upset him over his crimes against humanity. And when the International Community did react - after the Iranians had single handedly liberated their land - it was to come up with this rather belated dull advice:

"Calls further for a withdrawal of forces to internationally recognised boundaries" (Resolution 1514 of the Security Council)

Withdrawal of forces! Not of Iraq, but of "forces". Of course.

Then you think again. And you remember again. You remember how the "International community" failed to issue a single condemnation - let alone calling for intervention - when your civilians and soldiers where being sprayed on a daily basis - for 8 long years - by Saddam Hussein's made in Europe chemical weapons of mass destruction. You remember the horrible images of all these asphyxiated women and children laying dead on the green fields of Zardeh, Sardasht, Piranshahr...But above all you remember the International Community's morbid silence/approval.

And you start asking questions. Where was the "International Community" at that time? What was the Security Council doing? Why did they wait for six years and thousands of Iranian corps before adopting a resolution only to "deplore" the use of chemical weapons? (Art. 2, Resolution 582). Why trust them now? Why give them any credit today when they claim and try to convince me as an Iranian - without showing any sort of evidence of course - that my government's nuclear program is for military purposes? Aren't these people the same people who overthrew our nationalist leaders, restored dictatorship, supported Saddam Hussein against us and turned a blind eye to the use of WMDs against us just a few years ago? Are these people really genuine? Are they really so fond of world peace?

Then you listen to the news again. America threatens to attack you. "All the options are on the table" their President says. They - and their allies - speak of bunker busters capable of going deep into my country's underground to detonate "mini nukes". Even President Chirac of France hints he might use nuclear weapons against the ancient Iran. The Prime minister of Israel - not surprisingly though - announces his readiness to use force too if needed. And all that in the name of security, peace and freedom, and of course, under the watch of the good old "International community".

Then you realize that in fact, no matter what, you are the bad guy in the story. You were a "threat to peace" when a world icon like Mossadegh was your Prime minister, you were a member of the "Axis of Evil" when Khatami was struggling for reforms and "Dialogue among civilizations", and you are today "Chapter VII" material because you're assumed, once again, to be a menace to the world. But those who have always threatened you, gassed you, invaded you, occupied you, imposed sanctions on you, etc. and still destablize you and your future with coercion, force and further sanctions were always presumed to be on the right side of the International Community. In fact they were the International Community.

And suddenly the word "International community" founds a whole new meaning in your mind. A very sinistre one.

Walk a mile in an Iranian's shoes and you'll know what I mean.

FAQs about Iran's nuclear program: An Iranian perspective

I titled this first post "FAQs about Iran's nuclear program" but in fact, it doesn't really treat "Frequently asked questions" but rather "taken for granted assumptions about Iran" that most people in the West very infrequently bother to question.

Nonetheless, I think it's important that we seek to clarify some of them, just so that those who are interested in the subject (and oppose Iran's nuclear program) also get the chance to comprehend "the other side's" perspective on the issue:

1- Iran is oil rich. It doesn't need nuclear energy: Its nuclear program must therefore be a disguise to acquire nuclear weapons!

Iran is indeed rich in oil and gas. But in only two decades from now, it would be a net importer of energy. Don’t take our word for it though. In 1974, it was an American research institute, the prestigious Stanford Research Institute, whom in a study conducted for the former regime (with which the US had great relations) concluded that by the year 1994, (twenty years from then), Iran would need an electrical capacity of about 20,000-megawatt in order to sustain its population. We are now in 2007 and since 1974, our population has more than doubled; and our energy consumption quadrupled. Back then we had 4400 villages that had electricity, today we have 60 000. If we don’t diversify our energy sources now, as the US itself recommended to us over 30 years ago, we would not be able to self-reliantly fulfill our energetic needs by 2020.

Moreover, we earn most of our foreign currency from the export of our gas and oil. But today, we spend more than half of our production for domestic consumption. We can make much more money exporting those, rather than burning them at home.

2- Iran wants nuclear weapons to deter the US from attacking it, just like North Korea!

From an emotional standpoint, this argument would probably make sense. After all, a nuclear device does look like a good deterrent. And indeed, it has proved to be a useful tool for North Korea which uses it to threaten its neighbors and get the US to negotiate. But from a more accurate and realistic perspective, this argument just doesn’t hold up for Iran.

First of all, Iran is not North Korea. It has its own strategic calculations and, like any other country, it elaborates its defense policies based on its unique realities on the ground. To name just one, North Korea can reach the US territory with its nuclear-warhead carrying missiles; Iran can not.

Secondly, Iran is the largest and most powerful State in its region. It does not have any power deficit with regards to any of its immediate neighbors and doesn’t really need any additional device to protect itself. From Iran’s perspective, the only real threat comes from either Israel or the United States and in both these cases a nuclear weapon wouldn’t simply cut it. The reason is simple and comprehensible for anyone slightly familiar with International Relation’s terminology: Iran does not have the first strike-second strike capacity vis-à-vis either of these two States and in these circumstances a nuclear weapon would simply not be considered a deterrent with their regard.

Moreover, Iran’s leadership is very well aware of the fact that by producing a nuclear weapon or by producing the capability of making nuclear weapons, it would only make itself a justifiable and legitimate target for these hostile countries.

So, from an analytic point of view, from the perspective of decision-maker sitting in Tehran, Iran's development of nuclear weapons would only increase its vulnerability and diminish the integrity and authority of the current non proliferation regime to which Iranian security is very much dependant.

To this strategic consideration, adds also an ideological one, based on religious percepts: In Iran’s theocracy, the most prominent religious figures, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, have repeatedly issued decrees against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

3- Iran concealed its program for 18 years. So it must be for military purposes!

Before we start, let’s be a little cautious about the terms we so easily use and take for granted. This phrase “18 years of concealment” has been so frequently repeated and abused by western politicians and the mass media that it has almost become an automatic impulsive argument against Iran’s nuclear program.

However, "18 years of concealment" wrongly implies that Iran had a legal obligation to disclose all its activities, but concealed. Well, this is not true. The truth, which the media so often fails to reflect, is that, except for a very few reporting obligations, Iran did not have the obligation to report anything that it did not report. In fact, based on IAEA regulations, Iran was only supposed to declare its facilities 180 days before introducing uranium in it, and it stops at that.

So conducting research, buying centrifuges (from whomever we wanted), assembling them, installing them, etc., were all legal activities. The fact that Iran did not report these activities should not, in any way, lead to the conclusion that it “concealed” anything or breached any law.

Of course, we don’t seek to hide behind legal subterfuges and are well aware that it would have made sense - under normal circumstances - for Iran to report all its nuclear related activities in “good faith” and, by this, allay all concerns. But the fact is that for the past 27 years, we have not lived under normal circumstances because of the US.

In fact, for the past two decades, because of Washington’s constant pressures on our business partners, we have had to purchase almost anything of dual use secretly from the black market. This is true for both our public and private sectors and for a wide variety of products ranging from chemicals used to make medications and vaccines to materials used for our nuclear program. Any Iranian businessman can confirm this sad reality.

Each time we tried to procure a good or a service from the open international market, we failed, simply because revealing our sources of acquisition would make them a target of American pressure. And of course, as a matter of pure pragmatism and practicality, no company would be prepared to risk its relations with the US to do business with Iran.

The truth is that the US has always pushed Iran to buy whatever it legitimately needs from the black market and the nuclear program is no exception.

So we did not “conceal” for 18 years. We only did not declare what we had the right not to declare in order to protect ourselves and our partners from US pressures, and it's usual obstructions, hindrances and impediments in the normal course of our development.

In fact, if anyone has failed to its legal duties, it is indeed the western countries, including the United States, whom as “nuclear States” under the NPT have the binding obligation to facilitate our access to peaceful nuclear technology. Not only did they fail to do that, but they are now rapidly moving toward depriving us from the possibility to exercise our rights.

4- Iran is a dangerous country who seeks to destabilize the region.

You be the judge. Iran has not invaded or waged any war of aggression against any country for the past 250 years, although we were victim aggression. Iran has not used any sort of weapons of mass destruction against any country, unlike the US, although we were victims of chemical weapons in the 1980s by the then western-backed Saddam Hussein. Iran is content with its size; it has access to two major seas and has immense natural resources. It has a well educated population and no plan or aspiration toward anyone’s territory.

Iran has no interest in perturbing the region. In fact, what we have been lacking for the past century to boost our economy and develop - in this dangerous neighborhood of the Middle East- was and is a little bit of stability. Every time an imperial power - be it the UK, Russia, or the US - has decided to invade or wage war on a neighbor, we were the one who had to bear the consequences by taking the refugees, putting on hold our trade and shifting the gear to the “crisis management” or “special circumstances” mode.

This sad reality persists to this day.

The fact is that Iran is now a country of a very high percentage of youth. We are probably one of the youngest nations in the world. Almost 70% of our population is under 30 years old and all have huge expectations from their government. We need a tranquil environment to create jobs, develop our infrastructure and facilities trade to accommodate them. Just like any other country in similar circumstances. By no twist of the logic can anyone pretend that Iran would be better off- or thinks it would be better off - in a climate of instability and insecurity.

Any by the way, never in Iraq's history have we had a government so friendly to Iran. The irony is that Iran was the sole supporter of the opposition to Saddam during his reign and now that the people it supported for more than two decades are in power, it is assumed and propagated by the Bush administration that Iran is trying to destitute them.

You do the math.

5- The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has said that he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map". Iran's nuclear program must be intended for this purpose!

Many Iranians are very critical of their politicians. In fact, a great percentage of our people don't approve of the official positions, whether on local politics or on the international scene, and our democratic movement in Iran has, for many years, tried to push for reforms. The recent Tehran conference on the Holocaust was probably condemned more vigorously by Iran's own civil society than by anyone else in the world. But it's important to be genuine and fair in our critics and appreciations:

First of all, the Western opposition to Iran's nuclear program officially began during President Khatami's tenure, who is best known for his reconciliatory tone, his pacifist approach to the world and his theory of "Dialogue among civilizations". So, conveniently linking the nuclear program to what the current president has allegedly said about Israel is not really an objective nor an honest way to deal with the issue.

Secondly, President Ahmadinejad has never said "Israel should be wiped off the map". In fact, no such idiom exists in Persian. The phrase was wrongly translated and conveniently propagated to fuel hysteria and paranoia over Iran's nuclear program.

What Ahmadinejad has said is, in his exact words, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute:

[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.

In that same speech, Ahmadinejad gave the examples of Iran under the Shah, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein 's regime in Iraq as examples of apparently invincible regimes that ceased to exist. The case of the Israeli regime was mentioned in the same context. That simple.

Secondly, under the Iranian Constitution, the President does not control the military, cannot declare war and cannot order any sort of conventional or "nuclear" attack against another State. So even if Mr. Ahmadinejad had really wanted to "wipe off Israel", he wouldn't have had the authority to do so. The President in Iran is not even in charge of the elaboration of the foreign policy, let alone the destruction of another State. The sad part is that both Israelis and Americans know that, yet insist on the distorted version of the President's speech to justify their opposition to Iran's nuclear program and depict it as an imminent threat to peace.

The truth is that Iran's official position toward Israel has been the same for the past 27 years. Iran's official stated policy on Israel has always been "a one-state solution" decided through a countrywide referendum. Even Ahmadinejad in his subsequent speeches has publicly endorsed that:

Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way. (Interview with Time magazine).

On the other hand, Israel has directly threatened Iran with the use of military force numerous times.

Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh has said that a preemptive strike on Iran was possible as "a last resort," immediately adding that "the last resort is sometimes the only resort". Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has also said on Oct. 19, 2006 that Iran would have "a price to pay" for continuing its nuclear programs and Iranians "have to be afraid" of what Israel might do. Similarly, Israel's Transport Minister and former Defense minister, Shaul Mofaz has said on Jan. 21, "We are preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program."

But of course, no one ever considers these statements uttered by the highest authorities in Israel as "breach of the UN Charter" or as "threat to International peace". So they get to enjoy their arsenal of nuclear weapons, publicly boast about it (like the Israeli Prime minister recently did), stay out of the NPT and still rest assured that "the international community" would never impose any kind of sanction on them.