"...Now, the West is all but isolated in insisting that Iran must not enrich. Most non-Westerners would prefer to see Iran treated like other NPT parties: allowed to enrich uranium in return for intrusive monitoring by IAEA inspectors. My sympathies lie with the non-Westerners. My hunch is that this gathering crisis could be avoided by a deal along the following lines: Iran would accept top-notch IAEA safeguards in return for being allowed to continue enriching uranium. In addition, Iran would volunteer some confidence-building measures to show that it has no intention of making nuclear weapons.
This, essentially, is the deal that Iran offered the UK, France and Germany in 2005. With hindsight, that offer should have been snapped up. It wasn’t, because our objective was to put a stop to all enrichment in Iran. That has remained the West’s aim ever since, despite countless Iranian reminders that they are unwilling to be treated as a second-class party to the NPT – with fewer rights than other signatories – and despite all the evidence that the Iranian character is more inclined to defiance than buckling under pressure."
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
"The West is all but isolated in insisting that Iran must not enrich..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, these comments are at least a start toward a solution...but what is omitted is the part that will prevent Washington from following this course. While these comments are far more rational and reasonable than most of the blindly biased anti-Iranian propaganda (in the U.S. at least),they omit "the rest of the story," which explains why Washington will not follow the author's sensible suggestions.
The mini-imperialists in Tel Aviv and the global imperialists in Washington still pretty much seem to hold sway, despite the protests of several major national security officials in both countries (e.g., Dagan), and what these imperialists want is, by definition, empire, not peace or compromise or equality or freedom for all mankind.
Ahmadinejad is just as good as Netanyahu at playing to the crowd and endangering his country's security for personal career advantage, so he makes an easy target (as Netanyahu would if Americans would only pay attention to how he is manipulating us).
Nevertheless, the U.S.-Iranian conflict is not about nukes, which are just a red herring. If the goal were a Mideast free of nuclear threat, then the nuclear discussion would involve Israel nukes as well as the possibility of a future Iranian nuke.
The issue is whether or not Washington can impose its will on the world. Even China and Russia no longer openly say "No," but little Iran--which has been around for 5,000 years--figures its time is not yet up and dares to challenge Goliath (not to mention mini-Goliath).
Iran in fact "can't do a %^* thing," to paraphrase a famous Iranian gentleman, but it serves as a symbol of resistance, and proud Goliaths do not like antagonistic symbols.
Who is this Peter Jenkins? I refuse to believe there is such a thing as a smart knowledgeable western political analyst but this guy is making it difficult for me to dismiss his article.
Post a Comment