Iran: Reasonable at It’s Front

Posted on March 11, 2010

Saurav Kumar:

We have always been advocating peace and stability. Diplomatic talks forged around building trust and confidence, which are considered to be the harbringer of peace in a region, have not always worked. Therefore, an obvious question strikes our mind — What should be, then done, in order to reinstate peace or better say, to make it sustain long ? There are many who would call for a healthy diplomatic conciliation on this, some non-pacifist would suggest an offensive move. Yet, these are not permanent solutions for a nation like Iran which is so vulnerable owing to the hectic condition of the Middle-East.

It is being said by US and other pro-US nations in an alarming tone that Iran is busy making nuclear armament, the implication of which would be non-peaceful in an already chaotic Middle-East environment and to the entire world. Iran is accused of secretly enriching uranium and for repudiating the investigation on nuclear properties demanded by IAEA several times. The West is concerned that Iran may have some offensive intentions behind such activity. I present here the probable nitty-gritty’s of Iran’s political machinery , considering the non-futuristic path that some of the Middle-East countries are heading on. Moreover , there would be an attempt from my side in making this move of Iran reasonable.

Iran has got two war-torn regions–Iraq at the West and Afghanistan at the East, both of these nations being doomed by a common force- USA.

USA entered in a war against Taliban which was accused to shelter Al-Qaida, the force behind the 9/11 holocaust, and which had taken Afghanistan into a sheer primitiveness and theocratic compulsions. The fate of Iraq had driven the nation into another war , but this time with its own former ally US. Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussain, this time was accused of implementing chemical warfare against Iran during Iran-Iraq war in 1980-1988, and waging a war on Kuwait in 1990 seeking the excuse of stealing its oil beside other hegemonic claims. The conditions here in the aftermath of the war are conspicuous to us and therefore, there are many who condemn this offensive action of US to emerge out as a global superpower.

To a great extent, I agree. Indeed US connivance was pitiful when Iraq was using chemical warfare against Iran (as a matter of fact US was backing Iraq in this war) , and was seeking a retaliation to an earlier event in 1979 , when some University students of Iran had made an US official a hostage for 444 days in order to oust pro-US Shah regime and reinstate democracy. Since then, US has always been looking for a chance to vandalize Iran. Moreover, there have always been such intentions to refrain Iran from becoming a powerful state in the Middle-East. The criticism over nuclear development is one such display.

1. Iran is the second largest producer and exporter of oil in the world. Moreover, it is the fourth-largest exporter of crude oil globally after Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates. This culminates, into US having the desire to get hands over the oil reserves and its fiscal profit in order to maintain the global dominance which has always been challenged by Russia, and now by China.

2. Iran had nationalized all its oil reserves and oil-conglomerates soon after the democracy was reinstated in 1980. This move ceased entire opportunities for foreign interventions, particularly of US and UK, which were the dominant profiteers from Iranian oil-exports prior to 1979.

3. With oil prices going up day by day, US must have been concerned with the oil consumption in the Industrial sector, lagging on which would definitely cause embarrassment to its global economy strongholds.

4. US must have been alarmed with the Russian alignment in the context of Iran policies. Moreover China, another US rival has some tie-ups made recently with Iran in exchange of oil.

All these factors have driven US to a state where maintaining its global grip would be the sole priority. To pursue that, US would definitely cast a move, and indeed it has!

Now I would like to establish Iran’s nuclear policy reasonable :-

1. Iran has witnessed the worst during Iran-Iraq war , and therefore it would be its sole concern in making a robust defense in order to check any foreign intervention.

2. The double standard US-policy played against Iraq and Afghanistan (during Afghanistan war 1979-1989 ) has created a distrust in Iran for US. Overthrowing democracy in Iran through a CIA coup in 1953 was sought to be a valid reason for such distrust among Iranians.

3. The United States (and other official nuclear weapons states) were alleged during the May 2005 month-long meeting on the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) to be in violation of the NPT through Article VI, which requires them to disarm their nuclear weapons, which they have not done yet. Is it justified ? Perhaps Iran would have the same answer (what US is having) to all those who are busy reproaching so-called Iranian nuclear-ignominy.

Thus, to conclude, I supremely believe that to maintain peace in a region, a proper balance of power is needed. Iran has got pro-US machinery in its neighboring nations Iraq and Afghanistan. To nullify the US dominance over the Middle-East, it is not unjustified to build proper safeguards. Almost all the nations had once started their nuclear warhead program in order to maintain regional balance of power ( This is perfectly valid in the context of India, Pakistan and China). If it is acceptable at some place, then it must be the same in the context of Iran.

I am complacent to hope that Iran would not bear the blame for another nuclear war.

The writer is a correspondent of Youth Ki Awaaz

Similar Posts
Sharique Umar in GlobeScope
August 8, 2018
Taha Joher in GlobeScope
August 7, 2018