In doing so properly it would be a good idea to look back at the history of the Islamic Republic's nuclear program and when and how it started. It was Mr. Mohammad Khatami, former Iranian president, who on Feb 9, 2003 announced Iran's program for building sophisticated facilities at Natanz and several other cities that would eventually produce enriched uranium. February 2003 was a month before the invasion of Iraq, on March 2003, by the US and the Coalition of Willing Forces. Just a simple coincidence? May be or may be not. I found it hard to believe, considering the intelligence and diplomatic world, that a big neighbour such as Iran was supposed to sit dully and witness the mobilisation of a huge military forces around its long, over 900 kilometers, border with Iraq without being informed about it in advance. I would argue that Tehran had most probably known that the invasion was inevitable at the time of Mr. Khatami's announcement. It is also probable that, even before that, Iran had been given assurances over its security. Mr. Khatami's announcement then may be interpreted as what Tehran would have thought deters any future adventurer.
When we trace back Tehran's behaviour in regard to its nuclear matter in the past 7 years, it certainly points to that direction. The Islamic Republic, not Iran, we should remember that, during this period has always been vocal about its security--that is of course the security of a bunch of power-hungry unelected people like Taliban in Afghanistan or Saddam and his fellows in Iraq--and asked for a security guaranty from the US in return for abandoning its enrichment program.
If this is a correct assumption to draw a link between the Mr. Khatami's announcement and the invasion of Iraq in 2003; then it leads us to believe that Tehran considers its uranium enrichment capability along with its parallel long-range missile program--it is tirelessly pursuing--as its insurance policy. For Tehran, in that sense, nothing has really changed since the last meeting they had with the 5+1 over 14 months ago. The only change occurred in this period is that since the last year rigged-election and the following protests by tens of millions of Iranians chanting against the Islamic establishment; the regime has lost its legitimacy domestically, if not internationally for now. The 5+1 is now conscious of that fact; they heard the Iranian people's fervour for democracy. This single fact, I strongly believe, was behind the US' boosted confidence to successfully pursue and convince the Security Council, the European Union, Japan, South Korea and the rest of its friends in the world to tighten the sanctions' noose.
The noose is now tightened badly around the neck of Revolutionary Guards generals and their political associates such as Ali Khameneii (the leader) and their appointed president Ahmadi Nejad, whom jointly overtake 80+ percent of the country economy. They are desperately trying to offer themselves as a viable partner at the negotiation table. But they are not; the 5+1 is attentive of that fact. It knows that this government and its representative cannot give what they don't have. They are unstable. And an unstable regime in Iran and the Middle East for that matter has no credibility to offer anything. Therefore the 5+1 cannot possibly afford to risk any compromise without guaranteed human rights and democracy for the people of Iran. Simply because it is the people who can give you guaranty and stability.
In this sense, any compromise on the side of the regime must force it to return to the same position as it was before their last year election-coup. This is, I trust, the desirable out-come for the 5+1. And perhaps the new sanctions were designed to achieve that goal. But Tehran did not expect it, and the scale of sanctions caught them by surprise. Very least--I would say--Ali Khameneei (so-called Supreme Leader) and his associates have been fooled by the president Obama's friendly gesture before the last year presidential election in Iran. They wrongly interpreted the president gesture as a green-light to bring the country under their clout, while--I believe--president Obama only intended to gauge their popularity and standing in Iran. When they failed the test, it came the most stringent sanctions against them.
These developments have changed the setting for this meeting, the parameters have been changed, said the White House Spokesman recently. The significant difference is that the Mullahs' regime has received a no-confidence vote from the people of Iran. The election-coup and the ensuing unrest undermined the very sovereignty of this regime. Iran now officially runs by mafia which has gone on rampage and indiscriminately eliminate their opponents. Now imagine this mafia has an ambition to acquire a Big Bomb too; the result is unimaginable! The new-sanction regime was a consistent response to this fact. What the mafia wants, other side of the table, is to be left alone and be given a security guarantee by the US. In fact they have always wanted it since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nonetheless, the US, its allies and the world community, understandably, have always been more cautious in dealing with Tehran for a single and simple reason; the young Iranian generation. The generation which forms close to 50 millions of the total 70 millions Iran's population. These are those who mostly were on streets chanting 'death to dictator', the so-called Supreme Leader. They are the crucial elements to be considered by the West at the table.
In conclusion and considering foregoing, this negotiation is not going to yield any meaningful out-come. The 5+1 has no choice but to tighten the noose and eventually, if it is necessary, use other means as well to hit many Middle Eastern birds with one stone. It also needs to stand with the Iranian people in their battle against a tyrannic regime which in a sense is for its own benefit!
No comments:
Post a Comment