The article discusses the renewed focus on Iran’s nuclear program in U.S. policy, criticizing double standards in nuclear disarmament expectations compared to Israel. It highlights the flawed analogy with South Africa and Libya’s disarmament, while emphasizing Iran’s adherence to the NPT. The failure of sanctions to achieve desired outcomes further underscores the necessity for mutual respect in diplomatic relations.
The ongoing debate surrounding Iran’s nuclear program has resurfaced in U.S. foreign policy discussions, particularly following a Wall Street Journal article advocating for Iran’s comprehensive nuclear disarmament. This article suggests that Iran should dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, drawing parallels with South Africa’s disarmament in 1990 and Libya’s in 2003, which it claims were achieved through significant pressure such as sanctions and military threats.
However, these comparisons are fundamentally flawed. South Africa’s decision to dismantle its nuclear weapons was driven by internal political reforms rather than external coercion. In Libya’s case, disarmament followed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which ultimately did not protect the Libyan government from subsequent Western military intervention. Iran is aware of these precedents and has no incentive to pursue unilateral disarmament, fearing it would not enhance its security.
The expectation for Iran to relinquish its nuclear program reflects hypocrisy and double standards. While Iran adheres to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and allows inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Israel, a nuclear-capable state, has neither signed the NPT nor permitted inspections, yet faces no pressure to disarm. A genuine non-proliferation effort would demand equal accountability from all nations, not just those perceived as adversaries.
Moreover, the narrative surrounding Iran’s alleged stalling tactics in negotiations is misleading. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) successfully imposed substantial constraints on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, a deal to which Iran adhered, as confirmed by the IAEA. The unilateral withdrawal by the Trump administration in 2018 and the reinstatement of sanctions undermined Iran’s trust in U.S. diplomacy, leading to Iran’s gradual reduction of its commitments only after it became clear that the sanctions would not be lifted.
Presently, the same factions that opposed the JCPOA are advocating for a new deal that demands total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear capabilities without offering meaningful concessions in return. The argument that increased sanctions will force Iran to capitulate reflects an outdated perspective, as such measures have historically failed to undermine the Iranian government or its nuclear ambitions. Instead, sanctions have driven Iran closer to alternative economic partnerships with nations like China and Russia.
The assertion that Iran’s economy is on the verge of collapse is also misleading. Despite facing economic challenges, Iran has adapted by enhancing its domestic industries and diversifying trade ties, demonstrating resilience rather than vulnerability. Sanctions inflict significant hardship on Iranian civilians, resulting in inflation and shortages while leaving the government capable of sustaining its operations. A genuine attempt to aid the Iranian populace would involve engaging in constructive negotiations rather than imposing economic hardship.
Furthermore, the article suggests Iran must choose between nuclear disarmament and military conflict, implying that continued defiance could provoke an attack on its nuclear sites. However, the root of instability in West Asia stems from Western intervention and support for oppressive regimes, not Iran’s nuclear program. Claims that Iran’s nuclear ambitions threaten regional security serve to preserve U.S. and Israeli military dominance, with nuclear capabilities deemed acceptable for allied nations but not for those challenging American hegemony.
Iran has expressed its willingness to negotiate, yet it will not consent to an agreement that demands total surrender without reciprocal measures. The U.S. must learn from past mistakes, recognizing that effective diplomacy is rooted in mutual respect and dialogue rather than intimidation. Only through this approach can a fair and lasting agreement be realized.
In conclusion, the discourse surrounding Iran’s nuclear program reveals significant disparities in expectations and actions among nations. The historical context of disarmament in South Africa and Libya illustrates that external pressure does not guarantee security or compliance. Iranian adherence to the NPT contrasts sharply with Israel’s nuclear stance, highlighting double standards in the non-proliferation debate. As sanctions have proven ineffective in dismantling Iran’s resolve, a shift towards respectful diplomacy is essential for attaining a meaningful resolution.
Original Source: www.tehrantimes.com
