The discussion on Iran’s nuclear program highlights Western double standards, especially in demands for disarmament versus Israel’s nuclear capabilities. The comparison to South Africa and Libya fails to acknowledge Iran’s legitimate concerns about sovereignty and security. Economic sanctions have not achieved their intended goals and have only intensified Iran’s resolve. A new approach based on mutual respect is essential to reach a fair agreement.
The discourse surrounding Iran’s nuclear program has resurfaced in discussions on U.S. foreign policy, propelled by a recent Wall Street Journal article advocating for the complete nuclear disarmament of Iran. This article refers to a report from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, implying that significant pressure—such as sanctions and military intimidation—is necessary to persuade Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, drawing comparisons to South Africa and Libya. However, this narrative is deeply flawed as it neglects the historical context of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the inconsistent application of standards by the U.S. and Israel.
A significant point of contention within the report is its call for Iran to emulate South Africa and Libya. This analogy fails because South Africa’s disarmament was a peaceful decision stemming from internal changes rather than external coercion, whereas Libya’s abandonment of its nuclear aspirations followed a U.S. invasion, ultimately leading to further intervention. Iran is aware of these historical precedents and remains unconvinced that disarming unilaterally would enhance its security or stability.
Moreover, the expectation imposed on Iran to relinquish its nuclear program denotes a clear double standard. Iran, a participant in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), routinely welcomes International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections. In stark contrast, Israel possesses nuclear weapons and has never signed the NPT, yet faces no demands for disarmament. If the objective truly is non-proliferation, then uniform application of standards to all nations, regardless of their political affiliations, is imperative.
The portrayal of Iran as merely extending negotiations to buy time for its nuclear pursuits undermines the reality of its compliance with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which imposed strict limits on its nuclear activities. Following the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 and the subsequent reinstatement of sanctions—despite Iran’s adherence to the agreement—trust in U.S. diplomatic intentions eroded significantly.
Initially, Iran continued to honor the JCPOA hoping for European support, but ultimately reduced its commitments when it became apparent that sanctions would persist. The narrative that Iran is to blame for any breaches of agreement is, therefore, a misrepresentation of the historical facts.
Moreover, advocates of sanctions argue that Iran’s fragile economy will force the government to capitulate. This perspective ignores the historical ineffectiveness of sanctions as tools of diplomacy, as they have not toppled the government or halted nuclear ambitions. Instead, sanctions have deepened Iranian societal grievances while catalyzing partnerships with nations like China and Russia.
Assertions that Iran’s economy is on the brink of collapse are misleading. Despite significant economic hardship, Iran has strengthened its internal industries and sought new trading alliances, demonstrating resilience in the face of adversity. Economic warfare has often fortified national resolve instead of diminishing it.
The piece suggests a forced choice for Iran between disarmament and potential conflict, reducing the complex notion of regional stability. However, the root of instability in West Asia predominantly stems from Western military engagements and the support of autocratic regimes. The threats to Iran regarding its nuclear program are not primarily security threats, but rather efforts to ensure U.S. and Israeli military superiority.
While some demand Iran disarm nuclear capabilities, they themselves maintain nuclear arsenals. This underscores the hypocrisy of allowing nuclear capabilities for allies while denying them to nations perceived as adversaries. Iran has shown willingness to engage in dialogue but will not accept demands for unilateral disarmament without reciprocal concessions.
The U.S. should learn from past diplomatic failures and recognize that successful diplomacy is founded upon mutual respect rather than coercive tactics. Achieving a fair agreement necessitates a shift in approach, fostering an environment conducive to genuine negotiations.
In conclusion, the discourse around Iran’s nuclear program reveals significant double standards in U.S. foreign policy, particularly in its comparisons with disarmament cases of other nations. The insistence that Iran must disarm while ignoring Israel’s nuclear arsenal illustrates a troubling inconsistency. Moreover, the ongoing use of sanctions as a means of coercion has not proven effective in altering Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A truly effective diplomatic strategy must prioritize respect and mutual concessions rather than threats to foster a pathway to a fair and lasting resolution.
Original Source: www.tehrantimes.com
