The article critiques Western demands for Iran’s total nuclear disarmament, highlighting double standards in U.S. and Israeli policies and the failures of sanctions. It emphasizes the need for genuine diplomacy based on mutual respect rather than coercion, pointing out that past strategies have been ineffective in compelling Iran to abandon its nuclear program.
Recent discussions around Iran’s nuclear program have intensified in U.S. foreign policy dialogue, highlighted by a Wall Street Journal article advocating for Iran’s total nuclear disarmament. The article references a report from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, suggesting that Iran should completely eliminate its nuclear capabilities, drawing parallels with South Africa’s disarmament in 1990 and Libya’s in 2003, asserting that significant pressure is necessary to achieve this goal. However, this perspective fails to recognize the historical context of Iran’s nuclear development and the inconsistencies in Western policy toward nuclear proliferation.
The argument that Iran should follow the examples of South Africa and Libya is fundamentally flawed. South Africa dismantled its nuclear arsenal during a peaceful transition from apartheid rather than due to external coercion, whereas Libya’s disarmament was influenced by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which did not guarantee lasting security. Iran is acutely aware of these historical precedents, which provide no incentive for unilateral disarmament given the lack of security assurances.
The call for Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions reveals a clear double standard. Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and allows inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In sharp contrast, Israel possesses nuclear weapons without being a signatory to the NPT and evades international scrutiny. A true commitment to non-proliferation would see equal treatment of all states involved, rather than focusing solely on perceived adversaries like Iran.
The portrayal of Iran as using negotiations to delay its nuclear progress misrepresents the events surrounding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) of 2015, which imposed strict limitations on Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Iran consistently complied with the agreement, as verified by the IAEA, until the U.S. unilaterally exited the JCPOA in 2018 and reinstated sanctions. This eroded trust and prompted Iran to gradually retreat from its commitments when it became clear that European nations were not fulfilling their obligations.
The claim that heightened sanctions will pressure Iran’s government to capitulate is a continuation of an ineffective strategy the U.S. has deployed for years. While these sanctions have deeply affected ordinary Iranians, they have not toppled the regime or halted Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, they have fostered suspicion and encouraged Iran to develop deeper ties with nations like China and Russia, indicating a shift in Iran’s economic alliances. The idea that Iran is on the brink of collapse is misleading, as the nation has shown significant adaptability by bolstering domestic production and forging new trade partnerships despite ongoing economic challenges.
Sanctions primarily harm the civilian population, exacerbating inflation and creating shortages, while leaving government policies relatively untouched. If the U.S. were genuinely committed to helping the Iranian populace, it would engage in constructive negotiations instead of imposing economic constraints. The discourse suggesting that Iran must choose between disarmament and conflict overlooks additional factors contributing to regional instability, particularly the role of Western military interventions and support for oppressive regimes.
Claims that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a direct threat to regional peace oversimplify complex realities. The actual source of instability lies in U.S. and Israeli military dominance in the region, with those advocating for Iran’s disarmament often being equipped with their own nuclear arsenals. This narrative reinforces the notion that nuclear arms are acceptable for U.S. allies but off-limits for nations opposing American influence.
While Iran has expressed willingness to engage in dialogue, it is unwilling to make unilateral concessions without reciprocal benefits. U.S. policy should shift from intimidation to respectful diplomacy, emphasizing that genuine agreements require mutual benefits to foster lasting peace in the region.
The article highlights significant inconsistencies in Western pressure toward Iran’s nuclear disarmament while ignoring historical contexts and double standards. It argues that sanctions have failed to achieve their intended goals, often exacerbating the situation instead. Discussions on nuclear disarmament should recognize mutual respect as a fundamental requirement for any meaningful agreement, rather than coercive measures that have historically led to resentment and mistrust.
Original Source: www.tehrantimes.com
