The United States
can be held to lead the international community only if that community
is defined as the U.S. and whoever happens to go along with it, often
through intimidation, as is sometimes tacitly conceded.
An interim
agreement on Iran's nuclear policies that will provide a six-month period for substantive negotiations was announced on November 24.
Michael Gordon, a reporter for the
New York Times,
wrote,
“It was the first time in nearly a decade, American officials said,
that an international agreement had been reached to halt much of Iran's
nuclear program and roll some elements of it back.”
The United States moved at once to impose severe penalties on a Swiss
firm that had violated U.S.-imposed sanctions. “The timing of the
announcement seemed to be partly intended to send a signal that the
Obama administration still considers Iran subject to economic
isolation,” Rick Gladstone
explained in
The Times.
The “landmark accord” indeed includes significant Iranian
concessions–though nothing comparable from the United States, which
merely agreed to temporarily limit its punishment of Iran.
It's easy to imagine possible U.S. concessions. To mention just one: The United States is the only country directly
violating
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (and more severely, the United
Nations Charter) by maintaining its threat of force against Iran. The
United States could also insist that its Israeli client refrain from
this severe violation of international law–which is just one of many.
In mainstream discourse, it is considered natural that Iran alone
should make concessions. After all, the United States is the White
Knight, leading the international community in its efforts to contain
Iran–which is held to be the gravest threat to world peace–and to compel
it to refrain from its aggression, terror and other crimes.
There is a different perspective, little heard, though it might be
worth at least a mention. It begins by rejecting the American assertion
that the accord breaks 10 years of unwillingness on Iran's part to
address this alleged nuclear threat.
Ten years ago Iran offered to resolve its differences with the United
States over nuclear programs, along with all other issues. The Bush
administration rejected the offer angrily and reprimanded the Swiss
diplomat who conveyed it.
The European Union and Iran then sought an arrangement under which Iran
would suspend uranium enrichment while the EU would provide assurances
that the U.S. would not attack. As Selig Harrison
reported in the
Financial Times, “the EU, held back by the U.S. … refused to discuss security issues,” and the effort died.
In 2010, Iran
accepted
a proposal by Turkey and Brazil to ship its enriched uranium to Turkey
for storage. In return, the West would provide isotopes for Iran's
medical research reactors. President Obama furiously denounced Brazil
and Turkey for breaking ranks, and quickly imposed harsher sanctions.
Irritated, Brazil released a
letter
from Obama in which he had proposed this arrangement, presumably
assuming that Iran would reject it. The incident quickly disappeared
from view.
Also in 2010, the NPT members called for an
international conference
to carry forward a long-standing Arab initiative to establish a zone
free of weapons of mass destruction in the region, to be held in
Helsinki in December 2012. Israel refused to attend. Iran agreed to do
so, unconditionally.
The U.S. then announced that the conference was canceled, reiterating
Israel's objections. The Arab states, the European Parliament and Russia
called for a rapid reconvening of the conference, while the U.N.
General Assembly voted 174-6 to call on Israel to join the NPT and open
its facilities to inspection. Voting “no” were the United States,
Israel, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau—a result that
suggests another possible U.S. concession today.
Such isolation of the United States in the international arena is quite normal, on a wide range of issues.
In contrast, the non-aligned movement (most of the world), at its
meeting last year in Tehran, once again vigorously supported Iran's
right, as a signer of the NPT, to enrich uranium. The U.S. rejects that
argument, claiming that the right is conditional on a clean bill of
health from inspectors, but there is no such wording in the treaty.
A large majority of Arabs support Iran's right to pursue its nuclear
program. Arabs are hostile to Iran, but overwhelmingly regard the United
States and Israel as the primary threats they face, as
Shibley Telhami reported again in his recent comprehensive review of Arab opinion.
“Western officials appear flummoxed” by Iran's refusal to abandon the right to enrich uranium, Frank Rose
observes in the
New York Times, offering a psychological explanation. Others come to mind if we step slightly out of the box.
The United States can be held to lead the international community only
if that community is defined as the U.S. and whoever happens to go along
with it, often through intimidation, as is sometimes tacitly conceded.
Critics of the new accord, as David E. Sanger and Jodi Rudoren report in
The New York Times,
warn
that “wily middlemen, Chinese eager for energy sources and Europeans
looking for a way back to the old days, when Iran was a major source of
trade, will see their chance to leap the barriers.” In short, they
currently accept American orders only because of fear. And in fact
China, India and many others have sought their own ways to evade U.S.
sanctions on Iran.
The alternative perspective challenges the rest of the standard U.S.
version. It does not overlook the fact that for 60 years, without a
break, the United States has been torturing Iranians. That punishment
began in 1953 with the
CIA-run coup
that overthrew Iran's parliamentary government and installed the Shah, a
tyrant who regularly compiled one of the worst human rights records in
the world as an American ally.
When the Shah was himself overthrown in 1979, the U.S. turned at once
to supporting Saddam Hussein's murderous invasion of Iran, finally
joining directly by reflagging Iraq ally Kuwait's ships so that they
could break an Iranian blockade. In 1988 a U.S. naval vessel also
shot down an Iranian airliner in commercial airspace, killing 290 people, then received presidential honors upon returning home.
After Iran was forced to capitulate, the United States renewed its
support for its friend Saddam, even inviting Iraqi nuclear engineers to
the U.S. for advanced training in weapons production. The Clinton
administration then imposed sanctions on Iran, which have become much
harsher in recent years.
There are in fact two rogue states operating in the region, resorting
to aggression and terror and violating international law at will: the
United States and its Israeli client. Iran has indeed carried out an act
of aggression: conquering three Arab islands under the U.S.-backed
Shah. But any terror credibly attributed to Iran pales in comparison
with that of the rogue states.
It is understandable that those rogue states should strenuously object
to a deterrent in the region, and should lead a campaign to free
themselves from any such constraints.
Just how far will the lesser rogue state go to eliminate the feared
deterrent on the pretext of an “existential threat”? Some fear that it
will go very far. Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations warns
in Foreign Policy that Israel might resort to nuclear war. Foreign
policy analyst Zbigniew Brzezinski urges Washington to make it clear to
Israel that the U.S. Air Force will stop them if they try to bomb.
Which of these conflicting perspectives is closer to reality? To answer
the question is more than just a useful exercise. Significant global
consequences turn on the answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment