If you want sanctions, I am not with you

The recent decision by the IAEA (UN nuclear watch dog) has unleashed a clear fear and also another set of empty statements inside and from the Iranian diplomacy. Iran has opened it's economy to Europe, India and China with the illusion that they may go against any rough decision in IAEA or UN and that failed in a very ridiculous way. I do not know much about politics but even to me it is not clear what the Iranian policy is up to:

• If they wanted nuclear technology and wanted to enrich, what did they accept something more than NPT in the first place?

• If they want a peaceful technology really, why they are now warning the world that they will get out of the NPT?

I grew up under war and sanctions, I do not want to see Iran under sanction again. This government cares about it's ideology first and then the people. That is insane. Who said that we should cut relations with US and pay this huge price. This is enough.

Comments

[Nema]

Well said Mr. Behi

[faridpouya]

Thanks for writing. I lived in Iran during war, it was terrible!

[Rodrigo Martins]

Hi,

I´m a journalist from O Estado de S. Paulo brazilian newspaper and i´m doing na article about blogs in Iran. In the internet, i´ve saw your blog. So, i´d like to make an interview with you to know the difficulties to write in a blog in a country where the internet is censored, like in Iran

If you do not want me to publish your real name, that´s no problem.

Thanks,
Rodrigo Martins

[Shiva]

Hello, Mr. Behi,

I think Iran entered into the NPT to show its agreement with the world community that nuclear weapons are B - A - D. How would that mindset change if Iran was to pursue nuclear energy? So far, Iran has operated within the legal framework of the treaty, so why should the country be forced to stop?

Why should any country, if upholding the rule of law, be forced to follow orders that fall beyond the scope of the treaty? It's simply not warranted, for Iran or for any other poor country, to allow such blatant political blackmail to occur on an international scale.

You grew up in Iran, and wherever your politics lie, you should know better than anybody about the difficulties associated with not having the latest technology at your fingertips. Nuclear energy can change all that, and bring a wealth of opportunities to Iranian youth.

[Don Cox]

If they want peaceful technology, why are they getting involved with nuclear fission at all? This technology is totally discredited nowadays, because of the enormous problem of the almost everlasting radioactive waste.

A combinatin of wind and solar power, perhaps combined with microgrids as described here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4245584.stm
would make much more sense.

If they insist on nuclear fission, it can only be for making weapons.
-------
Mr.Behi says: well said Don, we have places with more than 300 days of sunshine.

[Agha Havayi]

The current regime thinks it will make Iran stronger by developing nuclear technology and confronting the West. But Iran cannot become strong if all the talented people are leaving for the US and Europe. Iran cannot be strong if the culture, politics and economy are dominated by a few narrow-minded extremists.

In fact, the West fears most that Iran will reform and have a moderate, democratic government. A government that is backed clearly by the people would easily be able to develop nuclear technology. The West would also lose its justification for hostility towards Iran.

[Blake Arnold]

About the NPT and Iran's intentions:

As far as I can tell, Iran is really not trying to build a bomb now. Iran wants to be independent and to be able to use domestic supplies if the US gets its foreign suppliers to stop. Iran has signed and is following the additional protocols which allow on the spot inspections. It is pretty much impossible to build a weapon while subject to the additional protocols.

Iran may also want to be in the position a lot of other non-nuclear NPT states are in - which is that in an emergency they could pull out of the NPT and build a weapon. Japan, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, South Korea, Taiwan and probably about a dozen other nations have that status and there is nothing in the NPT or the additional protocols that prohibits having the ability to build a weapon if you leave the NPT.

The US and the EU want Iran to formally renounce ever having the ability to build nuclear weapons. And even worse, they are pretending Iran has already agreed to renounce that ability by signing and ratifying the NPT. That position is absurd and even comical. Iran will not take what is a pretty drastic extra step without being compensated greatly for it, if at all. The EU offer was really not much more than the status quo.

Iran basically wants the same privileges that every technologically advanced signatory of the NPT has. Even if Iran does not build a weapon, the fact that it could in an emergency would still alter its strategic position with respect to its regional rivals. And supporters of Iran's regional rivals are willing to go to any length to prevent that.
-----
Mr.Behi says: I agree, in a rational sense, this is a right for every nation and whatever you say is right. The thing is that we need many privileges in technical side prior to nuclear technology. We always need to compare what we get and what we loose. Tehran needs huge investment to prevent a huge disaster that an anticipated Earthquake can bring. There are basic needs to push the west and get more important than a reactor that we do not even know what will happen to it's waste. There are better ways to become technically advanced. My point is that why to choose soemthing that sensitive?

[Blake Arnold]

Mr. Behi:

The issue is not really that Iran is choosing anything sensitive.

Iran signed the NPT, but the NPT does not prohibit being able to build a weapon if you leave the NPT.

The issue is that the West wants Iran to drastically change the terms of its participation in the NPT without any compensation for changing the terms.

After Iran agrees to change the terms, it will not have much more access to Western technology than it has today. The United States will still attempt to block all technology transfer that it can.

If Iran wants investment from the West it has to make peace with Israel and change its government so that the West is secure that Iran will not become hostile to Israel under any circumstances, regardless of the will of the Iranian people.

If Iran will not do that, Iran has no hope of reducing the hostility shown to it by the West. The NPT and the nuclear program really are not the direct cause of that hostility.

I do not think this is a case of the West being reasonable and Iran being unreasonable. The West wants to reduce Iran's access to nuclear technology for reasons that have nothing to do with Iran's nuclear program.

For example South Korea was recently found to have secretly and in violation of the NPT developed bomb-grade uranium. South Korea was not brought before the security council and certainly not told it must permanently renounce ever even having the capacity to enrich uranium. The solution was to put all of South Korea's facilities under usual NPT inspections and the world can be sure South Korea does not have a bomb.

The fact is that a country that signs the additional protocols - which Iran is willing to do - finds it essentially impossible to build a nuclear weapon in secret.
--------
Mr.Behi says: That is all true. The root for many of our problems is that our government always say Israel should be removed from the surface of the earth and believe it or not, this is not voice of our people. Palestinians were among the few who praised saddam Hossein when he attacked Iran and Iranian govenrment forces this much limitation to it's people to prove that Israel should go away and it should be all palestine which is not wise. To me, it is all right not to be hostile with Isreal. This is sad why the peace process is going slow and I wished they would have done something like South Africa to remove this much clash and leave in peace. Iranian policy is biased to the fact that regardless of how much pressure it brings to Iranian people, it should always protect palestinians and that is because religion is connected to state here that is something that I personally do not like to see. Thanks for you nice ideas. I agree totally that west is being unfair in this case and if Iranian policy was logical in other issues related, I would be one of the supporters. cheers. Behi

[Don Cox]

"In fact, the West fears most that Iran will reform and have a moderate, democratic government."

On the contrary, that is exactly what the West wants. A free country that we can trade with and have cultural and scientific exchanges with. Tourism in both directions. Investment in both directions.

That is what we want. Not a country ruled by a gang of paranoid "religious" bullies.

"A government that is backed clearly by the people would easily be able to develop nuclear technology."

If the voters wanted that. In most countries now, there is a strong majority against nuclear power. So in a democratic Iran, nuclear would probably be a vote loser.

"The West would also lose its justification for hostility towards Iran."

Exactly. The hostility would cease, or at least be no worse than the hostility between the USA and France.

[Agha Havayi]

Don Cox, you claim that the West just wants Iran to be a free, democratic country. But do you know what has happened in the past 200 years whenever an effective Iranian reform movement has tried to make Iran free and democratic? The West has been very hostile to such movements and has often directly crushed them.

The British were paying Islamic fanatics to kill our reformist leaders since the time of the Qajars. Of course, the Americans crushed Mossadegh and installed the Shah's puppet regimes. The Shah's torturers and secret police were trained by the CIA.

Are you saying that the West, who gave Saddam advanced weapons to destroy Iran, now wants to help Iran? Maybe the West wants to help Iran like it is helping Iraq.

Strong, independent states do not make good servants, and the pattern has been that the West is friendly to servant nations only, regardless of their lack of democracy, like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. As soon as a nation stops acting like a servant, relations go downhill.

Today, the extremists elements in Iran are made stronger by the ridiculous hostility of the West. The elections in Iran, which were very good for a Middle-Eastern country, were condemned by the US before they happened. But nothing was said about the 88% victory of Mubarak in Egypt, except to praise the moves towards democracy.

Why? Egypt sets its policies after receiving orders from the US, but Iran does not. The West doesn't really care about democracy, they just use it as an excuse when it is in their interest.

We Iranians must be wise enough not to fall into this trap. We cannot support small-minded fanatics just because they say they are standing against the West. We have to choose wise, moderate leaders who will lift the barriers to Iran becoming strong, independent and free.
-----
Mr.Behi says: Great words, fantastic view. Thanks

[Shiva]

Agha Havayi, you should start a blog!

[Don Cox]

The Mossadeq incident was fifty years ago. Britain gave away its empire before most people alive today were born. We have absolutely no interest in controlling Iran, except that we do not want any more countries to have nuclear weapons.

Particularly when the purpose of such weapons is to wipe out Israel. One Holocaust is enough.

There has been a real shift in US policy in recent years - they finally realised that the old policy of supporting any old dictator so long as he was anti-Communist was wrong and counter-productive. Problem is, the dictators will not simply vanish overnight.

But the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria were/are truly horrible, and I support the war to remove Saddam from power. The Baathists are still fighting to regain power.

Didn't most of Saddam's weapons come from Russia, not "the west" (which is many countries whose foreign policies do not always agree)?

[al]

Sure the nukes are a concern, but its not everything. the US's beef with iran is about power and control in the region.
nukes and terrorism are just convenient means of achieving imperialistic goals.

The US is guilty of supporting extremism worldwide and in the middle east.
the US supported saddam hussein when he was in cairo attempting to overthrow the iraqi government, and the US faciliated khomeini's rise to power as a means to destabilize the region and set off iran against iraq and saudi arabia.

Iran has always been a servant state and has been played by the west for the last 50 years, but now iran itself wants to become a player and become independent.
This is obviously unacceptable according to western imerialistic ideology.
The US wants iran's oil and gas contracts and its battling with china and india for resources worldwide.
Also iran is planning to open an oil and gas exchange next year that will bypass the NYSE and cost the americans billions.
This is also unacceptable to the west.

The only way to ensure that iran remains independent and impervious to foreign intervention is to be on the same playing field and power level.
Right now iran is not in that position economically and scientifically, but there is a short cut, nuclear weapons.

[Shiva]

I'm sorry, Al, you almost had me going until you mentioned the U.S. "facilitating Khomeini's rise to power." In what way?? This is the same conspiracy theory voiced by a handful of ignorant Iranian exiles in the U.S. They also haven't come to grips with the concept that the shah was a despot.

The idea that Khomeini was plopped into power is wholly inaccurate, and shows a blatant disregard for history. What could the possible benefits have been for the U.S.?

Also, your last line implies that Iran really does seek nuclear energy to build weapons, as a short cut to gaining economic and scientific strength? This is absurd. How do nuclear weapons provide a shortcut?? How?!?!? The shortcut, actually, to advancement in science and technology, as well as economic strength most notably lies in the hundreds--perhaps thousands--of uses nuclear energy provides, in virtually every industry known to man. In fact, nuclear energy will make Iran even less reliant on developed nations than it already is, and allow the country to operate on a far more efficient scale. All this, without compromising the country's diminishing natural resources.

While all the Arab countries in the region have been selling themselves to foreigners by the barrel, Iran has been planning for the long-run. It's a very practical thing to do, and if you've done your research on Iran, you'd learn that it is quite the practical country.

The US has no interest in subjugating Iran, or anyone else. We won't spare the money to maintain the troop strength necessary. What the US wants is peace, and a trading partner. Iran could easily have that, but not if they continue to intersperse their claims of peaceful nuclear experimentation with chanting "death to America" on the floor of their legislature.
By the way, I was in Egypt for their election, and I am happy to report that anyone who wanted to run for President was allowed to do so, and their views, even those critical of the regime, were in the local media. Granted, the media is controlled by the Regime, and it wasn't what one would call "fair", but it was a far cry from what Iran had. No overarching Mullocracy was allowed to select which toady was allowed to run. A pretty good start, I'd say.
Hawkpilot

[Shiva]

To anonymous poster above:

Unless you're Sean Penn, how do you know what the election was like in Iran? Furthermore, females have run for president in Iran before, and they've even garnered an impressive percentage of votes. So...what are you talking about?

And actually, I think newspapers do get their thoughts out; there are tons, and if one is closed down, it just opens again under a new name.

If you are Sean Penn, I thought your reports on Iran were inaccurate and superficial, and just to be clear, a journalist shouldn't write stories in a movie-script style fashion--it presents a melodrama that exaggerates or discredits reality.

[Agha Havayi]

You must certainly be joking about the election in Egypt. Mubarak got 88% of the vote, and is now busy imprisoning the opposition candidate, Nur, who received 7%. The Egyptian regime claimed only a 23% turnout and there was much doubt about the validity of the elections coming from Egyptian judges. Mubarak is known as the "last pharaoh" because he is Egypt's longest-ruling leader since the pharaohs!

Where do you people get the idea that Western governments are so enlightened and peaceful that all they want is freedom and good relations with Iran? All nations act in their own interests, and the history of Western actions in the past 200 years have been brutal and anything but benign. You have to be very naive to believe this propaganda about angelic Western governments trying to civilize the "barbaric" oppressed peoples of the Middle East.

Thugs like Mubarak, and really all the oppressive, pro-Western leaders in the Middle East, except for Turkey, are what breeds extremist political movements, like the one that is in power in Iran. Remember that you are judged by the company you keep. When the West stands with the Shah in Iran, Suharto in Indonesia, Saddam in Iraq, the Saudis, Mubarak in Egypt, and Musharraf in Pakistan, their people will not have good feelings for you.

I would say the Iranian regime is probably the second or third most democratic government in the Middle East, behind Turkey and Bahrain. This is not a great honor to Iran, given the sad state of freedom in the Middle East, but with harsh dictatorships ruling Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt, it is obvious that democracy is not the main reason the West is hostile to Iran.

Actually, in Iran, the people are not nearly as extremist as in other Muslim countries. Iranians have not been involved in terrorism against civilians directly, and lately they have taken an active role in combatting Al Qaeda. I hope our people continue to be wise enough to stay away from this madness of terrorism and concentrate on improving their own country instead of ruining other people's countries.

Few people in the West know that Iran was fighting the Taliban for years before 2001, and helped the US a lot in Afghanistan. Then in 2002, Iran was put in the Axis of Evil, despite its strong efforts against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. This is really too hypocritical, since none of the Axis of Evil had anything to do with international terror, and were only a problem for their own populations.

Shiva, I don't think Sean Penn's reports about Iran were that good. But he seemed to show different sides of the society and disclaimed some of the nasty stereotypes. I agree that it was very superficial. This was really ridiculous because it was composed of several extremely long articles, so he had a lot of room to discuss matters more deeply.
------
Mr.Behi says: I guess the reason why Iran did all those you mentioned but is still loosing the game is that it does not recognize with whom it should deal. This is sad as you said that west has been doing all that but this seems to be the reality. Iran is paying too much to China, India and Russia for their support and in the end of the day that is not apparantly useful. I guess the problem is not having relations with the US. Even if you want to prove that soemone is wrong, you should go and tell him and make sure he understands your point. I am sure if Iran was that powerful like west today, the level of exploitation it would have done on other countries whould not be less that what US does today. I hate this fast but it seems real (This just came into my mind actually).This world is becoming a global village. To have a sign in this village, we have to participate in it's construction otherwise we will be dissolved in it I think.

[Agha Havayi]

Yes, Mr. Behi, all the bad actions of the West are no excuse for Iran's terrible policies which make it isolated. Also, the damage from the West would not have happened in the past centuries if Iran was not corrupt and weak.

It is strange that Iran is so dependent on Russia and China, who are very brutal to their Muslim minorities. This shows that all nations are basically without morals in their actions, including Iran, but just following the convenient options. However, I think there have been a few examples of strong nations that were not so bad towards their neighbors, like Iran under Kurosh the Great, who freed slaves and allowed every country to keep their way of life.

But Iran must do so much before it can have good relations with the West. I don't know if that can happen unless there is a big change at all levels of leadership in Iran. Actually, I think Iran must make reforms to create a more free and prosperous society first, and the new leadership coming from that new society will have to improve foreign relations.

[Rafael]

I am a Spanish Teacher in the University in Tehran (I´ll be here untill the end of June 2006). Thanks for your blog, I will link it into my web and weblog www.rafaelrobles.com

[al]

Khomeini wasn’t directly put into power by the US, but the US did confuse the shah by giving him contradicting signals and telling him that his time was up. One year before the revolution Iran did not renew a 25 year agreement with British Petroleum, so the British wanted him out.
Also the US at that point wanted to balance the power in the region, because Iran was too powerful in contrast to other nations. By introducing extremism via Khomeini it would destabilize the region and setoff shia against sunni, and then in the future the US was to come in and clean up, meaning eliminating regimes that “support terrorism”, “violate human rights” and “posses wmd’s”. thats exactly the way its playing out right now, except for the iran part of it.
By the way US was silent when these violations of humans rights was taking place and also quiet when wmd’s were being used, but offcourse now that its time to clean up the mess and take all the oil, now the US is speaking against these regimes, back then it wasnt a problem.

The shortcut means that iran is becoming a nuclear power and that gives it a powerful deterrent against US intentions, that means the US can no longer consider military options against iran, thats the shortcut to balancing power.

The US wants to eliminate iran as an adversary, and to take all the oil and gas contracts iran has to offer, the US doesnt need a trading partner in iran, it needs iran’s oil and gas.
In this century the wars are going to be fought over natural resources and water.
Terrorism and human rights are just excuses to wage these wars.

[ahwazi]

do you really believe that the usa is interested in a democratic system in iran?wishfull thinking.uncle sam only cares about domination and support for dictators in the middle east.the best example is iraq.the country is almost destroyed and the shite mullas ,just like their counter parts in iran are in charge of the so called ,elected, government.what a joke.the usa supports the mullas in iraq but opposes them in iran.very strange indeed.

there is no doubt that the mullas regime is an appaling one but imposing sanctions against this regime will not work and will hurt ordinary iranian people.the west does not give a crap about the iranian people.they just want them subjugated.

[Randy]

I'm an American, and as I read the comments posted, it makes me sad. Just like we have certain prejuidices against other people and nations, so do others against us. I sometimes wonder why the governments of nations can become so different than the people they claim to represent. I think each and every country that possesses a degree of power, either a specific "quid" or a vast array of elements, they tend to view "their interests" much differently than the common citizen wants.

I for one person, truly would like to have Iran as a trading partner, both in technology and tourism. I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, but I truly do pray for peach in the world. I was once a soldier and now my sons are military. I worry for them, yet I also worry for everyone. Why do so many situations evolve as a task to paint a train. Once you start, the train begins to roll, then faster and faster as people run frantically to try and cover it with paint. In the end, the job is only a big mess.

Seems more wars have been fought due to religious differences that any other reason. Why do Shias fight with Shites? Why does the west and east fight? We all say we want peace, yet there is always a war somewhere on the planet.

Nobody can claim that conflict is is good and serves a nations best interests. Military might is used when politicians believe there is no other means. How many wars have been fought because one entity acted irrational or refused to negotiate for their country's best interests.
Nazi Germany was a "must fight" war, why? Because Hitler gave others no other option.

Every country, as part of their diplomacy dossier, must consider their actions, and what the possible outcomes could be. Many times the US has unfortunately painted countries into a corner, limiting their responses and sometimes causing regime changes. Yet, we too have been painted into corners. They say politics is the art of comprimise. When one or both sides runout of chips, that's when the situation becomes dangerous. And, differences in religion aren't the excuse. Religious intolerance becomes the culprit. I befault no one for their means of worship. I can't reject or fight another based on their religion, because I give them no other options. They could either subjugate their own religious beliefs, or put their faith to test.

This concept is the same with any disagreement. Now I ask, should those people and nations that fear for Isreal's safety want Iran to have the means to destroy this country? History 100 years ago is no different than history 2000 years ago. No people can reset the clock and try to arrange the world according to a particular era. It's so sad how the Creator's people sometimes waste their lives. If we could live in a world of harmony and peace and trust; now that would be real progress. Instead, we feed on fear, hate and anger. And exploit each others differences and attitudes. May the Almighty save us all!

[Yonon Somar]

Iran is not building a bomb tomday but they intend to build a bomb tomorrow. The Iranian people prefer to live in Peace but the ruling clerics and its leaders are bored inside Iran so they wanted to be inlfuencial outside Iran. The government supports Hizballah & Hamaz who does nothing but ruins the lives of manmy Palestinians who wants to live in Peace. The voice of the people are not reflected by Hizballah & Hamaz because they rule by fear. Why would the west trust the leaders of Iran who supports terrorist groups.