By Mark Pyruz
That there will be a cost to pay for maintaining a legalist position toward its nuclear program, the Islamic Republic of Iran's leadership understand full well. From previous experiences with the West where the West has failed to deliver and continually moved the nuclear goalposts, they realize that it is nuclear rights and, to an extent, their very sovereignty that is at issue here. When one frames the issue in real Iranian terms, the Iranian position is well understood and predictable. Dennis Ross himself has written on taking advantage of this, and on purposely advancing an offer of false engagement that is intended to be rejected, in order to boost an anti-Iran agenda that deprives Iran of its nuclear rights, and moves forward elements of economic warfare to be directed against the Islamic Republic. This is a matter of public record, which everyone has read including the Iranians.
A considerable amount of effort is being undertaken by the US State Department, to further isolate Iran and advance this anti-Iran agenda. One wonders how a sincere effort of US engagement by President Obama toward Iran would fare if a similar level of effort were undertaken beyond that of an abrupt take-it-or-leave-it offer, comparable to the exertion of the USG's current anti-Iran efforts.
That the USG will ultimately succeed toward this latest anti-Iran effort is to be expected. But success this time around is also costing America, in terms of its leadership role on these related issues. The 118 member Non-Aligned Movement is behind the Islamic Republic of Iran's right to nuclear power, and the double standard policies exhibited by US policy is not being lost on rising regional powers, such as Turkey, China and Brazil. While these takeaways may appear minor for the US compared to the level of economic sacrifice the Iranians are willing to accept in order to retain their nuclear rights and sovereignty, nevertheless this has a cumulative and enduring effect on US world standing.
The Islamic Republic of Iran remains a revolutionary nation. Issues of rights and sovereignty shared by nations of the developing world make up elements of this revolutionary personality, and a shared cause such as the nuclear rights of developing nations allows revolutionary Iran to once again exhibit moral courage on the world stage, in the face of obvious double standard and hypocrisy. For the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran, this is of considerable importance, in addition to the very real advantages of developing an indigenous nuclear industry. Toward this endeavor, they appear to have the majority support of the Iranian people.
1 comment:
Mark,
It is very dangerous to assume that the official policies of the Iranian government, here on nuclear development, equals the best interests of Iran, and only the West is oppose to those policies. In my earlier post, I discussed the latest sanction resolution being discussed at UNSC. There are many Iranians, including Iranian officials, who would agree with me that swapping enriched uranium in a third country like Turkey would have made a lot of sense, without jeopardizing Iran’s goals of maintaining its uranium enrichment program. The list includes Maj. Gen. Firouzabadi, Iran’s chief of joint staff. Khamanie and Ahmadinejad are imposing bad policy here that is not in the best interests of the nation, regardless of their leadership positions.
I also believe that rebuilding of Iran’s economy and making it into an economic powerhouse, using all its natural and human resources, will make Iran a real power. One should not confuse the “support” of NAM, for example, with real progress toward creating a powerful nation. Many NAM countries might even vote for new round of sanctions, as they have done in the past three rounds. At the end of the day, the internal political and economic strength of Iran is what that counts.
Post a Comment