View on the news

Trading promises with those who hate us: The nuclear agreement with Iran

Christopher Curran
Posted 4/8/15

There is an Old Persian Proverb that states: “A sword in the hands of a drunken slave is less dangerous than science in the hands of the unscrupulous.” This proverb was written in relation to new …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
View on the news

Trading promises with those who hate us: The nuclear agreement with Iran

Posted

There is an Old Persian Proverb that states: “A sword in the hands of a drunken slave is less dangerous than science in the hands of the unscrupulous.” This proverb was written in relation to new armament in an ancient war. However, this saying is perhaps more applicable today.

After two years of covert negotiations and two months of overt ones, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have struck a tentative framework for an agreement that limits Iran’s nuclear power. Titled “The Interim Nuclear Agreement with Iran,” the covenant seeks to control Iran’s nuclear ambitions in exchange for the removal of economic sanctions. However, considering the structure of Iran’s government, a hard-fought pact may not be worth the paper it is written on. Nevertheless, the target date for the finalization of the agreement is June 30, 2015.

Although touted by the Obama Administration as a great diplomatic victory, in reality the framework is a rice paper house built on a foundation of sand. There has long been an atmosphere of distrust between the country once known as Persia and America. The United States has meddled in Iran’s history and not responded when called to help during a famine in the 19th century. The United States toppled a democratically elected Iranian government in the 1950s and installed a dictator friendly to America.

In response, Iran has struck out at us through hostage taking, depicted our country as a universal scapegoat for the world’s problems, and fiercely and consistently denounced virtually everything America has done geopolitically. In fact, the only time period when Iran was aligned with the United States was when we installed and sustained a friendly government in the country from 1953 to 1978.

Other nations in the Middle East are upset by our current diplomatic efforts, especially our closest ally in the region, the state of Israel. These countries want a zero-tolerance policy in regard to Iran’s nuclear capability. However, their concerns have been all but ignored by the administration, which has provided mollifying words and not much else.

Whether President Barack H. Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry are motivated by a sense that something truly constructive can be achieved is a question. Maybe they believe that this particular time is fortuitous because of Iran’s recent change of presidents from a hard liner to one more moderate. Or perhaps they are spurred on by the race of time to the impending end of a presidency, where the legacy of any agreement might benefit an historical account of the president’s term in office.

The foremost question to be answered is if a permanent agreement comes to fruition, can Iran be trusted not to breach that agreement? After all, we here in the United States are still referred to as the “Great Satan” in the Islamic nation of Iran, and “Death to America” is still used commonly as a salutation. Simply, can we trade promises with those who hates us and expect them to keep those promises?

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocratic republic of 81 million people with a military of 900,000 members. The country operates in all aspects under a Shia Islam belief system, in which Quranic interpretations of even the most simple of tasks are customary. Although the country theoretically has universal suffrage where a president is elected by a “one man one vote” process, all governmental decisions can be changed by the religious head of the nation, “The Supreme Leader.” Since the highest state authority, the elected president, can have any directive or agreement reversed by the Supreme Leader of Iran (currently the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) for reasons that some action might be adverse to the intentions of the Muslim faith, then how worthwhile would a nuclear deal with the United States be anyway? If on some interpreted religious basis in the future after the sanctions are lifted, the Supreme Leader deems the agreement should be rendered null and void, then what was the point of all this effort in the first place?

According to an editorial written by Kerry appearing in the Boston Globe newspaper, “Under the parameters, Iran would be required to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent, and cut the number of installed centrifuges that are or could be used to enrich uranium by more than two thirds.” That is all well and good should those reductions be accurately verifiable. The United States is counting on inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) to verify and supervise plants, supply chains, covert facilities known as “suspicious sites” and finished product storehouses. In the IAEA’s history, the organization’s inspectors have been fooled before in countries like India and Iraq. If a country wants to hide material from inspectors and deceive inspectors in regard to the volume of production, then methods do exist to achieve that circumvention. Considering the religiosity of the nation, the inspectors are bound to be treated as infidel intruders and will encounter very little cooperation. The New York Times referred to the validity of the inspection process as an “audacious gamble.”

Compounding the atmosphere of distrust has been America’s attitude toward Iran historically. In the 1870s, 1.5 million people died in what was called the “Great Persian Famine,” which was 25 percent of the Iranian population at the time. The Persian government appealed to U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant among many other Western leaders for help. As Persia was not within the scope of importance to America in that era, the request was not acted upon.

Contrarily, Iran was important to us in 1951 when Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister. The duly elected Mosaddegh nationalized Iran’s petroleum industry and oil reserves. This move was against Western business interests so MI 6 and the CIA of the United Kingdom and United States staged a coup d’etat and toppled his government. America and Britain installed the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as dictator. Thus, this unlawful change in government ensured a cooperative friend running Iran.

Unfortunately, our intrusion was not forgotten when the Iranian Islamic Revolution occurred in 1978 and 1979. Widespread strikes and demonstrations against Western companies in Iran showed signs that stated “Death to America!” Citizens were spurred by Islamic radicalism and anti-American sentiment and the return of religious leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni from 14 years of exile. The dictator Pahlavi was forced to flee, and in April of that year Iran officially became an Islamic Republic.

That same year in November, the American Embassy was overrun, and for 444 days, 52 Americans were held hostage and used as props in a public spectacle. Rescue attempts failed, diplomacy waned, and it was not until President Jimmy Carter was replaced with the hawkish Ronald Reagan that the hostages were released.

Furthermore, during the Iranian presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from 2005 to 2013, the United States was singled out in repetitive speeches as a scourge on the world.

Besides the animus for America, Iranian governments have long refused to support the right of the state of Israel to exist. Also, they have encouraged Israel’s destruction. It is no wonder that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United States Congress imploring our representatives to see the foolishness of a nuclear agreement with Iran. He believes the Iranians cannot be trusted and there should be zero tolerance of any nuclear capability. Other Middle East nations fret about Iran having nuclear weapons as well. For instance, Saudi Arabia has expressed great trepidation about Iran having nuclear weapons in its arsenal.

In analyzing the motivation of any nation in any negotiation, one must determine not only their needs but their earnestness to keep the covenants agreed upon. The secretary of state and the president believe that the current Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, is more moderate than his predecessor, Ahmadinejad, and therefore potentially more reasonable. They believe that Iran’s economic needs will trump its long-held enmity towards the United States, and thus they will comply with the restrictions on their nuclear ambitions. However, since any state agreement can be excluded at any time by the nation’s religious leader, the change in presidents may be irrelevant. Additionally, since the verification of nuclear limits by IAEA inspectors are fraught with peril, how certain could anyone be in the agreement’s implementation?

All in all, this prospective deal is a dangerous one indeed, for it is forged with a country that perhaps justifiably reviles us. Lasting agreements are built on trust. Since little trust exists here, how can any agreement last?

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here