The debate about US policy with respect to Iran's nuclear program takes it for granted that the dispute is really about Iran's nuclear program, when in fact the Iranians have quite justifiably concluded that the nuclear issue is a mere pretext, and no amount of compromises by them will divert the Bush administration's ambitions to "get Iran."
As the drumbeat of war on Iran continues, some ask whether it would be worth it for Iran to give in to US demands and suspend uranium enrichment (a precondition on talks with Iran imposed by Sec. of State and International War Criminal Condoleezza Rice) in the vague and vain hope that such a suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran would be a start on more constructive interaction between the two nations. They claim that only if everyone "gives diplomacy a chance" then everything will work out.
This suggestion is based on the laudable yet naive assumption that if only one side backs down, then the other side will reciprocate - and as such, it isn't a plan as much as it is a hope - worse yet, a hope that has already and repeatedly been shown to be plain wrong. In fact, there is good evidence that the US is far from interested in resolving its disputes with Iran - rather, the US is simply interested in creating and promoting conflict with Iran.
Empirically, we've seen a pattern in which each concession by Iran on the nuclear issue is followed up by greater demands by the Bush administration, and where genuine diplomatic solutions or cooperation suggested by Iran were ignored or actively sabotaged by the Bush administration. Iran already "gave diplomacy a chance" when it sent the offer of negotiation in 2003 which included even the issue of support for Palestinians as well as the nuclear issue - only to see the offer spurned by the Bush administration.
Later, the Iranians entered into the Paris Agreement with the EU-3 and suspended enrichment for 2 years. We all remember how that ended: The EU-3, acting under US-Israeli pressure and in blatant contravention of the explicit text of the Paris Agreement, tried to spin Iran's "temporary and non-legally binding" suspension into a permanent obligation; they made a belated offer that was designed to be refused by the Iranians, and then promptly accused the Iranians of "violating" the Paris Agreement when the Iranians returned to enrichment.
As a result, I suspect a good lesson was learned in Iran that the US/EU-3 simply can't be trusted, and that they're not actually interested in resolving conflicts with Iran.
Other Iranian offers of diplomatic compromise have been similarly ignored and short-shrifted and ignored even though they would have addressed any real, legitimate concern that Iran may use its nuclear program to build bombs.
And in fact, several Iranian authorities, including Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei and Iran's former President Rafsanjani, have indeed come to the conclusion that is merely a pretext by the US to pressure Iran, which would continue even if they gave in to US demands on that point:
"The U.S. is using the nuclear issue as a pretext for regime change," a senior Iranian official said this week. "The issue is a diversion. The U.S. wants to weaken Iran. Even if the nuclear issue was solved, they would want another thing and another thing."
In conclusion, the history of this dispute has shown without any question whatsoever that:
1- The US is not interested in any diplomatic solution, and has actively undermined potentially workable diplomatic solutions...
2- Repeated efforts by Iran to resolve this issue diplomatically, including by suspension of enrichment, were rejected off-hand, and will probably continue to be rejected in a similar manner, since...
3- No amount of capitulations by the Iranians will be satisfactory, and will only be followed by greater demands, because...
4- The nuclear enrichment issue is not the true bone of contention; it is merely a convenient pretext for another conflict which ...
5- Ultimately a strategic struggle between Israel and Iran in which Israel sees Iran as a threat to its regional ambitions/hegemony/relationship with the US. That's what the real conflict is about, not nuclear enrichment per se which is just a pretext and form of misdirection.
As Trita Parsi, author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States has written:
"But it wasn’t Iran that turned the Israeli-Iranian cold war warm – it was Israel...The Israeli reversal on Iran was partially motivated by the fear that its strategic importance would diminish significantly in the post-cold war middle east...Iran was now a potentially powerful regional player who could become a threat. And according to Israel’s military doctrine, potential threats are to be treated as existing threats."
Israel doesn't want to play the role of Taiwan if and when another US president decides to "go to China" by opening relations with Iran. An improved US-Iran relations would undermine Israel's ambitions and strategic value to the US. The fact that Iran and the US have many common interests is anathema to the Israelis, and so they've been pressing so hard for a conflict. That is precisely why pro-Israeli activists are so busy equating any diplomatic approaches to Iran as akin to Chamberlain appeasing Hitler, etc. This is what the conflict is really all about, and frankly all this talk about nuclear enrichment is really missing the bigger point.
Comments