STWR - Share The World's Resources

Political analysis of Iran’s nuclear program ignores historical interference in the country and the rich Iranian tradition in science and learning. Now, the US and EU should develop a nuanced approach which acknowledges the 'other side of the coin,' argues Sam Shoamanesh.

Filling the void left by the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq and strengthened by the apparent failure of the United States’ ‘remaking’ of the Middle East project in the aftermath of 9/11, Iran is re-emerging as a regional power.

Just as Iran resurges, tensions between it and the West have risen sharply. The bone of contention--Iran’s nuclear program-- has quickly mushroomed into the Middle East issue with the whole of the Western world convinced that Iran poses a serious threat should it go nuclear. Still others cry hypocrisy, in light of the sanctimony of regional and global nuclear powers.

To add insult to injury, the shocking comments of Iran’s President concerning the wiping of another sovereign (Israel) off the map, his questioning of Holocaust, or calling 9/11 a “suspect event”, have done little to defuse the growing Western unease with Iran’s nuclear program.

In the same vein of tactless statesmanship, recently the Israeli cabinet Minister, Rafi Eitan, suggested his country could kidnap the Iranian President, naturally causing outrage amongst the Iranians, while the former US Presidential hopeful, Senator Hillary Clinton, in a not so distant interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America”, openly declared if she was president she would “totally obliterate” the Iranians if they “consider” launching an attack on Israel.

This threat comes on the heels of repeated refusals by the United States to rule out nuclear first strikes against Iran; declarations in direct violation of the US-Negative Security Assurance pledge to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear armed members of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as is the case with Iran.

Such threats are equally in contravention of International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996), as well as Security Council Resolution 984. Such reckless fighting words from all sides only serve to aggravate a hyped up, irrational race towards war.

Sensibly to date, the Security Council has maintained diplomacy will be the modus operandi in dealing with Iran. However, how will diplomacy prevail when the current debate surrounding Iran’s nuclear program is misinformed, chiefly dominated by one version of the discourse? This commentary will analyze the escalating crisis by getting past the hype, fear, and assumptions in an attempt to unravel the motivations behind the Iranian position.

History of Iran’s Nuclear Program

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." – Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The genesis of Iran’s nuclear program can be traced to the 1950s, when the country began flirting with the idea of developing nuclear energy. Iran’s nuclear program was conceived with enthusiastic help from the United States, as well as European governments, notably France and Germany. Iran ratified the NPT in 1970, bringing its program under the inspection regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran has equally ratified other treaties which proscribe the development and use of WMDs.

The 1979 Revolution, which toppled the Iranian monarchy, brought an abrupt end to Western support of Iran’s nuclear program and the Iran-Iraq war, which started a year after, virtually closed the door to further cooperation. The program was later revived without Western assistance.

While the political climate in Iran is vastly different, the position of Iranian governments both pre- and post-Revolution concerning the country’s need and inalienable right to nuclear technology has not changed. Iran has always maintained its need for nuclear power as an alternative source of energy to supply its booming population (some 70 million) and rapid industrialization. It is estimated, at current rates of production, the country’s oil reserves will be depleted within decades.

From the times of the last Iranian monarch to the present, Iran’s position is that its valuable yet finite oil resources should be used for high-value products and not wasted on generating electricity. This is not a conveniently packaged reason offered by Iran.

At the inception of the program, the Gerald Ford Administration gave credence to this claim. The Ford strategy paper at the time stated that: "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals"; an assessment later echoed by others, including the US National Academy of Sciences, and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the British Parliament.

Many important details of Iran’s nuclear program simply do not form part of the mainstream debate. Contrary to the myth surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, an informed and reasonable observer will quickly realize there are indeed two sides to every coin, and that claims of the Iranian nuclear ‘threat’ are arguably more political than factual; that the United States’s unbending stance in rejecting Iran’s offer of negotiations without preconditions – United States insists uranium enrichment must be totally suspended – has served to exacerbate a dire situation.

The fact is, Iran is in compliance with international law in practicing its legitimate right to develop nuclear energy technology in accordance with the NPT. Let us explore some additional facts.

First, Iran informed IAEA of its plans to resume its nuclear program. The latter offered assistance in producing enriched uranium under its Technological Assistance Program. Second, article IV of NPT affords an inalienable right to signatory nations to nuclear technology "for peaceful purposes."

Demanding Iran – a signatory of the treaty – to suspend enrichment without credible evidence it is developing nuclear weapons is, in essence, a violation of Article IV.

In law, Iran is under no obligation to negotiate so long as it does not deviate from the “peaceful purposes” test – under international pressure it is negotiating as a confidence building measure.

Third, the IAEA, whose detective work in the field is more accurate than ‘remote detection’ highly relied on by intelligence services, has conducted countless on-site inspections on Iran’s nuclear sites – by 2005 alone, 1200 person/days of intrusive inspection were carried out – and while it has reported on technical compliance failures, it has not produced a scintilla of evidence suggesting Iran’s nuclear program is other than for civilian purposes.

Fourth, the IAEA has repeatedly confirmed Iran’s nuclear program “remains in peaceful use.” Fifth, Iran has met its obligations under the NPT, and when issues have arisen, responded with remedial steps.

Sixth, Iran proprio motu implemented the IAEA Additional Protocol and offered to entertain more rigorous transparency measures, bringing its program under a most strict inspection regime. Iran’s referral to the Security Council in 2006 brought an end to such initiatives, and its full cooperation with the IAEA has since suffered as a result.

Seventh, Iran has granted unprecedented concessions and invited Western countries to become partners in its uranium enrichment program as further transparency measures. Eighth, Iran has offered to renounce plutonium extraction technology, negating its capacity to build nuclear bombs.

Ninth, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader and head of the armed forces, has repeatedly declared Iran will not attack any country, issuing a ‘fatwa’/ban against the production and use of nuclear weapons -- calling for a nuclear weapons free Middle East.

Let it not be mistaken, aside from the fact that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East will work to the detriment of Iranian interests, the country is equally under no illusion that it can ever compete in a nuclear war in view of the superior technology and arsenal of other regional and world nuclear powers.

Tenth and finally, the IAEA has condemned the United States over reports issued by a congressional committee convened on Iran’s nuclear program, calling its contents “erroneous and misleading.”

As evidenced from the above, the picture is not as black and white as one would, otherwise, be inclined to believe. From the Iranian authorities’ outlook, the current row has little to do with a genuine international attempt at maintaining peace and security; rather it is a political game of double-standards and “nuclear and scientific apartheid”, where Iran is being forced to forfeit its alienable right to peaceful nuclear energy.

Iranian Motivations as a Function of the Country’s History

"Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." – M. Kemal Ataturk

Iranians can lay claim to one of the world’s oldest continuous civilizations and to being the beneficiary of many human-firsts in the realms of poetry, arts, governmental administration, military, the sciences, and religious thought. It was Cyrus the Great, the founding father of Iran, who at the zenith of power is credited with enacting the first charter of human rights in recorded history, entrenching religious tolerance, prohibitions against slavery and tyrannical rule.

This was over millennia before the Magna Carta. Iranians are also quick to point out that aside from their notable dynasties, they are descendants of great thinkers like Alhazen, the father of optics; Avicenna, father of early modern-medicine; and Nasir ad-Din Tusi, who 600 years before Charles Darwin authored a basic theory of evolution.

In sum, Iranians, irrespective of political differences between them, are a proud people. This reality should not be overlooked in analyzing the Iranian psyche as it relates to the country’s aspirations for nuclear technology. For Iranians, their past is the lens through which they see their future. Being home to various advanced indigenous scientific achievements, for Iranians nuclear energy is yet another national push towards progress and independence.

Sour lessons of recent history

Since the creation of their state some 2,500 years ago, Iranians, have, with few exceptions, been masters of their own domain and sovereign over vast territories. In the last two hundred years, however, Iran has suffered internal decay, manipulation by foreign powers, and much-reduced boundaries.

Without entering into the minutiae of the Iranian story, suffice it to say that in the nineteenth century, Iran became the playground of the “Great Game,” where the British Empire and Tsarist Russia competed for supremacy over Central Asia. Such skirmishes cost Iran greatly, resulting in substantial territorial loss and foreign exploitation – a long-lasting embarrassment for Iranians.

A further blow to Iranian national pride, and a defining moment in recent history, which catalyzed Iranians’ existing suspicion of Western powers was the agreement of the then British and US governments, albeit for different motivations, to the overthrow of Dr. M. Mossadegh, the elected democratically inclined prime minister of Iran through a CIA orchestrated coup d’état in 1953.

Dr. Mossadegh owned the hearts of the Iranian masses for his nationalization of the oil industry. His regrettable demise meant the strangling of Iran’s short-lived burgeoning democracy - the very first in the Middle East - and a "setback for democratic government" in Iran, according to former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. Recognition of this national tragedy is manifestly important to Iranians.

Yet another lesson of recent history with a profound impact on the Iranian psyche is the eight-year bloody war with Iraq, triggered by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in 1980. That terrible war, which produced no clear winner, managed to generate close to one million casualties on the Iranian side alone, and demonstrated to the Iranians they can place little confidence in the international community—in particular, its ability or willingness to protect them.

As is now widely known, as Iran was obtaining the upper hand in the war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian troops and civilians in contravention of Geneva Protocol (1925), to which it is a party, killing some 100,000 Iranians. The international community, whose members had supplied Iraq with material and know-how to build its arsenal of chemical weapons, was not only slow to react but equally failed to hold Saddam or any of his officials accountable for such patent war crimes. Due to painful lessons of the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian officials are suspect and reluctant to readily accept foreign promises.

Iran’s nuclear program does not exist in a vacuum. It exists as a by-product of the complex evolution of a historically proud people who in the legacy of their forefathers have been in the traditional pursuit of scientific development and progress (A Hadith attributed to Prophet Mohammed, before his army conquered the Iranian empire purportedly states: "[i]f scholarship hung suspended in the highest part of heaven, the Persians would attain it.")

In this case, the search for progress appears to be the need to provide nuclear energy to Iran’s sizeable and growing population, reducing in turn, domestic reliance on petroleum. Even if one were to entertain the idea that Iran will develop a nuclear weapons program, this too is to be seen in the context described above.

Hard lessons of Iran’s recent history have instilled the belief in the national conscience that Iran’s territorial integrity and sovereignty are under constant threat and that Iranians can rely only on themselves to protect their homeland from foreign intrusions. In this context, an Iranian nuclear-weapons program, if ever conceived, would in all probability be a deterrent national defence initiative aimed at preserving the nation’s security in a historically hostile neighbourhood (lest we forget neighbouring China, India, Israel, Pakistan and Russia, not to mention the strong US presence in Iraq – just next door to Iran – are all nuclear powers).

Iranians vis-à-vis Israel and the Jewish people

"Fear grows in darkness; if you think there's a bogeyman around, turn on the light." – Dorothy Thompson

Whilst tensions between Israel and Iran have intensified over the latter’s nuclear program, we know and are told nothing about the historical relationship between these two nations.

On the question of Iranian attitudes towards the Jewish people the same is true. Instead, we fixate on comments made by an individual, the current President of Iran, who is merely one actor in the highly complex domestic politics of Iran and who coincidentally has neither control over foreign (and nuclear) policy nor the armed forces under the Iranian Constitution. Surely, history matters and there is great value in exploring these questions.

Curiously, it was not long ago that Iran and Israel were strategic allies in the Middle East. At its inception, Israel, as a virtual island-state in a sea of ill-wishers, looked to Iran as an important ally. This alliance is part of the historical record. In fact, the two countries enjoyed close ties up to 1979 when the Islamic Republic of Iran was instituted.

Paradoxically, it was during the same period — pre-Revolution— that Iran first acquired nuclear technology with the blessing and consent of the United States without any controversy. Henry Kissinger himself, under President Gerald Ford, approved of the deal. Interestingly, at a time when Iran was being offered to buy US-made reprocessing facilities capable of delivering a complete 'nuclear fuel cycle', Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were serving as White House Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense respectively.

On Iranian attitudes towards Jewish people, an objective assessment of the historical record speaks for itself. Iranians over millennia and with few exceptions have been friends and allies of the Jewish people. As the Book of Ezra informs us, it was none other than an Iranian emperor - Cyrus the Great - who championed the struggle of the Jewish people, freed them, and facilitated their return to the Promised Land.

Countless examples of Iranian contributions to Jewish history or amicable partnerships are imprinted in the annals of time: i.e. the Second Temple’s construction was financed by the Iranian treasury, the Babylonian Talmud was finally written under Iranian rule, and Jews fought victoriously as brothers-in-arms with Persian-Parthian soldiers against invading Romans.

More importantly, in more recent history, during World War II, the Iranian government of a predominantly Shia’ Muslim country saved the lives of the 150,000 Iranian-Jews by convincing Nazi ‘race experts’ that they were fully assimilated and Iranian diplomats throughout Europe readily issued visas to European-Jews, facilitating their escape from the Nazi killing machine.

Iran today houses the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel. The Iranian Jewish community benefits from constitutional protection and is allocated a seat in Parliament. There is little interference with Jewish religious practice, yet the legal system does discriminate against religious minorities -- this is an ‘institutional’ issue to be differentiated from the discourse of the Iranian people. The average Iranian, irrespective of religion, is also a victim of the limitations of Iran’s legal system.

Against this background, however, how can we reconcile President Ahmadinejad’s outlandish comments concerning wiping Israel off the face of the map or his questioning of Holocaust while Iran remains steadfast in seeking nuclear technology? First, his personal stance does not resonate with the Iranian masses – in particular, when Iran’s presidential elections suffer from democratic deficits –, and contested within the regime itself.

More importantly, this is all political rhetoric—its wisdom, of course, can be debated at length. (Although failing to attract much publicity, M. Ahmadinejad himself has on numerous occasions publicly stated he is a friend of the Jewish people).

For a regime increasingly isolated both domestically and internationally, and situated in the turbulent geopolitical reality of the Middle East, their ‘rationale’ is as follows: such rhetoric will galvanize the region and indeed the Muslim world and beyond behind the Iranian government as a leader to be hailed as the only significant voice in defence of the unfortunate Palestinian people.

The Israeli-Palestinian tragedy is the Achilles heel of the region--a fact well known to the Iranian government, which has attempted to make this tragic conflict work to its advantage to feed its perceived national interests and aspirations for regional influence.

Notwithstanding, in this volatile political climate where tensions are high, to paint a fallacious image of Iranian attitudes towards the Jews or place an exaggerated emphasis on M. Ahmadinejad’s comments is unfortunate. The fact is that despite its flaws, and all states have their share, Iran is not a ‘failed state’ in the strict sense of the term and the Iranian government, whether one agrees or disagrees with its political ideology, is relatively speaking, a rational and calibrated state actor.

The Mullahs of Iran, even amongst the hardliners, are by no means suicidal, and place great value on their unyielding grip on power. They know very well any aggression towards Israel will have serious consequences for longevity of the Islamic Republic and hence their monopolistic rule.

The Astute Response 

The international community has been grappling with Iran’s nuclear program for some time, yet no clear solution has emerged. For those advocating a military response, Iranians, high strategists in their own rights, have made matters rather complex. Taking lessons from the 1981 destruction of Osirak in Iraq by the Israeli air-force, Iranian authorities have spread their facilities throughout the country, deep into the ground.

A sweeping hit-and-run military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities is, therefore, not likely to be a feasible military option, not to mention radioactive dispersal and regional environment contamination concerns.

We equally know that Iran is no Iraq: it occupies a much larger territory (four times the land mass) and triple Iraq’s population. Long on military tradition and stories of heroism in war, Iran is a formidable force. From antiquity, when the Romans suffered crushing defeats at the hands of the Persians to recent history, where an isolated Iran single handedly fought off Iraq in an eight-year bloody war (1980-1988), despite worldwide financial and military support enjoyed by the latter, Iran has always bravely fought any threat to its territorial integrity.

The Iranian nuclear question is unquestionably a complex conundrum that allows for no easy answers. What is certain is that the military option will have an unpredictable outcome at best, but at worst, will plunge the region and beyond into disastrous and costly convulsions. Military aggression could generate the following consequences:

Attacking Iran in the current international political context is unlikely to lead to an uprising for regime change. The vast majority of Iranians, irrespective of their views vis-à-vis the government, see the nuclear program from a nationalist lens as their inherent sovereign right, and perceive any outside interference simply as ‘bullying.’

With this dynamic on the ground, military confrontation premised on the need to halt the country’s nuclear program will only trigger Iranian nationalistic sentiments, galvanizing the masses behind the regime.

Second, at a stage when Iran has already acquired expertise to enrich uranium, military attack will not prevent further development of nuclear technology. At best, if successful – purely from a military standpoint – it may simply delay such inevitability. Conversely, attacking on such a pretext will only push Iranians away from negotiations, diplomatic engagement, and civilian nuclear technology, while strengthening the argument in their eyes that with historically hostile borders and foreign aggression, the country needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

Third, the democracy movement in Iran – and the Middle East – will suffer a major setback, while radicals throughout the region will be empowered with yet further ‘proof’ that foreign interest vis-à-vis Iran and the Middle East have always been driven by a core-and-periphery model of the world.

Fourth, seen through the post-9/11 lens of “clash of civilizations”, military aggression will further inflame the ire of the Muslim world against the United States and the West, rendering the environment ripe for extremists to flourish and carry out terrorist attacks.

Fifth, in a period where the world’s economy is showing signs of strain, war with Iran will only result in further economic decline, induced partly by an expected sharp rise in oil prices.

And finally, in addition to destabilizing the world’s oil prices, Iran could retaliate in a number of ways, including interference in Iraq and Afghanistan against US interests, mobilization of Hizbollah in Lebanon, attacking Israeli’s nuclear reactor in Dimona, inter alia.

Regrettably, the record of history and turmoil in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have shown that, far too often, despite the apparent sophistication and complexity of state machinery, serious foreign policy decisions are taken based on incomplete information, or solely on perceptions from one side of the equation, and almost in all cases guided merely by short-term gains, without any consideration for long-term consequences.

One plausible option to remedy the current impasse is for the international community, as a show of good faith, to engage Iran in direct talks without preconditions, saber-rattling or threats of further sanctions, which are coincidentally costing the Iranian people billions of dollars annually in an already over-burdened economy.

Although zero-enrichment is what is being asked of Iran, the likelihood of achieving this demand has become increasingly negligible, and alternative solutions should be explored. The current dilemma has been born mostly out of lack of confidence and pervading mutual distrust. Seen in this paradigm, it becomes patently obvious that the current course of war-mongering only serves to aggravate a dire situation.

Diplomacy with Iran should focus on credibility building, while negotiations should not be limited to the nuclear question alone. There is a long list of outstanding issues and interests that can be brought to the table (i.e. billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets kept by the United States since the 1979 Revolution; Iran’s cooperation in Iraq; public apology for the 1953 coup, a recognition of Iran’s security concerns…), which can all work towards improving relations with Iran.

Fruits to bear from such an approach would defuse the current race towards strife and innocent bloodshed, allowing the parties to work constructively, devoid of hostile feelings, towards a mutually acceptable solution.

The next US administration will have a fresh start and a renewed opportunity for robust diplomacy. Mutual respect and recognition of both states’ legitimate interests must form part of the new leadership’s vision of détente with Iran. Attempts at bringing Iran out of its past 30 years of isolation are also conducive moves towards a broad ‘win-win’ concordat where common interests can be explored (i.e. stability in Iraq, and Afghanistan and reducing opium trafficking…).

Further, by changing the aggressive rhetoric, the United States will gain much needed credibility with the Iranian population and in the region. Such a sound approach will also placate feelings in the streets of Iran that the United States, in opposing Iran’s nuclear program, is somehow fundamentally pitted against the Iranian peoples’ aspirations for progress--a popular sentiment the authorities have capitalized upon to galvanize the masses behind an otherwise unpopular government.

It is time that both states let past scars heal and move forward. A closer reflection will in fact reveal that the U.S. has in Iran – a large, modern, resource-rich, regionally important country with a young highly educated population, who contrary to popular belief, have not espoused anti-Americanism – a rather important ally in the Middle East region.

In closing, two humble suggestions. They say: “[w]ords are some of the most powerful and important things [...] Language is the tool of love and the weapon of hatred. It's the bright red warning flag of danger--and the stone foundation of diplomacy and peace.” The choice is ours! We can continue to beat the war drums with language which only serves to create further division, forcing voices of dialogue and reason to the sidelines, or we can adopt discourse that is well-informed, aimed at arriving at a real pragmatic solution.

Let us approach the current conundrum with pillars of true diplomacy: negotiations grounded in good faith, tact, and a balanced, well-informed approach.

Equally, it is incumbent upon us on all sides of the equation to proceed as objective observers--to get at the truth or a richer truth than the narrative we are now constantly being fed. It is hoped that in the bleak state-to-state discourse, there is a glimmer of light illuminating the hopes of those in the Middle East and beyond – Iranian, Israeli, and Arab…alike – who see no divide based on race or religion, but a common aspiration to live alongside one another in peace as equals in the garden of humanity.

Mr. Sasan Sam Shoamanesh is an international lawyer and has worked for several international legal institutions including the UN-International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and briefly on secondment at the UN-International Court of Justice. The views expressed herein are those of the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of his current or previous employers specifically or in general.

Link to original source

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment