Stampeding Us to War: False Choices on Iran's Nuclear Program

The range of options in dealing with Iran's nuclear program is being deliberately limited in order to justify a war with Iran or the imposition of sanctions. Left out are any acknowledgments of Iran's offers of nuclear compromise that would address any legitimate concerns about nuclear proliferation, while at the same time respecting Iran's right to operate a civilian nuclear energy program.

I was struck by a recent press release issued by the New America Foundation about an up-coming speech by Gary Samore on the subject of "Countering a Nuclear-Armed Iran", which states:

"Unless significantly greater sanctions are applied...we will eventually face a choice between acquiescing to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons break out option or using military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities."

Leaving aside deliberate ambiguities and hype here (a "nuclear armed" Iran is equated with possesion of a nuclear breakout "option" - whatever that means) this formulation of the range of options presented by Samore in dealing with Iran (and oft repeated in the media and by other pundits) presents the usual false choice.

Conveniently left out are the 8 or so Iranian offers that would address any real concern of nuclear proliferation, and which have included offers to renounce plutonium reprocessing (thus making it impossible to use the Arak nuclear facility to manufacture bombs, for example.) It appears that even acknowledgment of these offers is to be simply left off the agenda.

Amb Javad Zarif listed some of the terms of these offers in an op-ed piece which was published in the NY Times and International Herald Tribune in April 2006

For the sake of at least historical accuracy, it is important to note the details of the offer listed by Zarif:

"Over the course of negotiations, Iran volunteered to do the following within a balanced package:

1- Present the new atomic agency protocol on intrusive inspections to the Parliament for ratification, and to continue to put it in place pending ratification;

2- Permit the continuous on-site presence of IAEA inspectors at conversion and enrichment facilities;

3- Introduce legislation to permanently ban the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons;

4- Cooperate on export controls to prevent unauthorized access to nuclear material;

5- Refrain from reprocessing or producing plutonium;

6- Limit the enrichment of nuclear materials so that they are suitable for energy production but not for weaponry;

7- Immediately convert all enriched uranium to fuel rods, thereby precluding the possibility of further enrichment;

8- Limit the enrichment program to meet the contingency fuel requirements of Iran's power reactors
and future light-water reactors;

9- Begin putting in place the least contentious aspects of the enrichment program, like research and development, in order to assure the world of our intentions;

10- Accept foreign partners, both public and private, in our uranium enrichment program.

11- Iran has recently suggested the establishment of regional consortiums on fuel-cycle development that would be jointly owned and operated by countries possessing the technology and placed under atomic agency safeguards."

This false choice formulation has become a standard talking point which is repeated in pretty much all of the coverage of Iran's nuclear program. With all the recent speculation about an impending US attack on Iran, there are lots of articles discussing the same limited range of options (usually accompanied by pretty graphics showing the potential routes for Israeli planes to bomb Iran) - yet I have yet to see a single, solitary news report which even acknowledges Iran's compromise offers.

Comments

[hipotecas & prestamos]

Osama in Iran?

The Islamic Republic of Iran represents a clear and present danger to America. We are facing new threats, new capabilities, with very old and familiar intentions.

This is a regime whose leaders open official meetings with shouts of “Death to America.” This is a regime that has a long track record of murdering Americans, in Beirut, in Saudi Arabia, and in Iraq. Now this regime has acquired nuclear weapons capability.

Simply put, al Qaeda would not exist today as an organized force without the active material support from Iran.

Carlos Menendez
http://www.creditomagazine.es

[EEKman]

Good article, heres my take on it:

If we are to believe that Iran takes its Religion so seriously as to execute homosexuals under Sharia Law, then why wouldnt they also take THIS seriously:

"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam. The fatwa was cited in an official statement by the Iranian government at an August 2005 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.[40]"

Last I checked, Ahmadinejad doesn't hold all the power in Iran, the Ayatollah is the Supreme leader of iran.