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.