IRAN, NUCLEAR DISCORD
Nuclear facility in the province of Bushehr
There
is always a certain degree of hypocrisy each time we debate about
nuclear weapons, the limits to their use or acquisition and over
the right to develop their technology. The entire sector is
regulated by a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, signed in July
1968 by three countries that already had the atomic bomb: the
Soviet Union, the United States and Great Britain. In 1992 France
and China joined the signatories. The treaty is based on the
assumption that those who already owned nuclear weapons could keep
them, while the rest of the world was banned from obtaining them.
An asymmetric dictate of 11 articles that states in article 1 that
the owners of atomic bombs cannot move their weapons to another
country, or provide assistance in building them. Article 2 forces
the non-owners to sign a declaration whereby they give up the
pursuit of nuclear weapons.
The result of this disparity in treatment has led some of the
non-signatories, like India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel, to
supply themselves with atomic weapons disregarding international
controls. Other countries, instead, like Iraq and Libya, have been
barred from the nuclear club. Now it's Iran's turn. If the
ultimate aim is to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons
for the sake of world peace, then this is definitely a worthy
initiative. Instead, if we look at how the international community
has acted in similar cases, it is unacceptable that some countries
got away with it, while a veto has been imposed over Iran.
A controversial veto
It is largely debatable that a country that is a non-signatory to
the Treaty of Nonproliferation act as the referee in the Middle
East. In 1981 the Israelis claimed the right to bomb the Iraqi
nuclear facility of Osirak, similar raids took place in Syria over
the decades. Tel Aviv is ready to judge its neighbors, while no
one can ever judge them. It is also worthwhile to bring the clock
back to when Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was at the helm in Iran.
In those days the Israelis, and in particular Shimon Peres,
offered the Iranians their nuclear know-how, both for civilian and
military purposes. Israel did exactly the same thing with South
Africa during the apartheid.
Israel believes that it is its right to prevent Iran from
developing nuclear weapons or technology. Despite not being part
of international treaties, they claim their safety and survival
are at stake. But what is more menacing for Tel Aviv: a nuclear
bomb in the hands of the Ayatollah or a potential islamist drift
taking over Pakistan? The basic concept behind the Treaty of
Nonproliferation is pretty logical: the less the atomic bombs the
world owns, the better. However, the fact that only a limited
group of nations can rely on nuclear weapons and use them as a
deterrent in their foreign policy is also pretty disturbing.
The Israeli atomic bomb definitely grants the survival of Israel.
At the same time it prevents, or slows down, any peace process
involving other regional actors. By making Tel Aviv tougher than
the rest, it leaves no room for negotiations. Benjamin Netanyahu
personifies the intransigence of he who feels the strongest, a
show of force that affects any attempt to mediate. No concessions
are granted to the counterpart in the illusion, a wrong one
indeed, that Israel can continue to survive without any deal over
the cohabitation with neighboring countries or with the
Palestinians simply because they are the bullies of the class.
If this is the picture we're looking at, the deal between Iran and
the United States is a defeat for Israel. It is not an issue of
what is inside the deal, but of the political consequences that
come along a negotiated solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Firstly, the deal accepts the idea that Tehran will be able to
develop its nuclear technology for civilian purposes. Secondly,
Iran will be welcomed back on the international stage and will be
able to play the regional role it deserves in the Middle East.
Ancient Persia, a country of over 77 million people, the fourth
world producer of oil, home to 16% of the globe's gas reserves,
will soon shine again.
In other words, the deal will radically reshape the geo-strategic
physiognomy of the region. Israel is hence not as worried about
the Iranians obtaining a nuclear weapon, but rather of the
influence Iran will be able to exert on the balance of power in
the Middle East. The Israelis are particularly wary of the
Lebanese Hezbollah, the only credible military force operating
along the borders of the Jewish State.
Benjamin Netanyahu
A wrong strategy
During the past years cyber-attacks, computer bugs and viruses,
attacks against infrastructures or scientists and espionage have
all contributed to the monitoring and the slowing down of Iranian
research activities. This has not prevented Netanyahu from using
apocalyptic tones and from thinking about a pre-emptive strike
against Iranian nuclear sites, the latter was blocked at the last
minute following a US veto. The Israeli PM has exploited the
Iranian scare during the recent political campaign to confirm him
in office. In the heat of the moment Benjamin Netanyahu has taken
the alleged Iranian threat all the way to the General Assembly of
the United Nations, where he has shown a number of slides
indicating the progress made towards an atomic bomb. However, his
claims were refuted by Mossad and by other influential members of
the security apparatus, including Meir Dagan.
Israel, or more precisely Netanyahu, has gotten it all wrong when
it comes to conveying its message about an Iranian nuclear threat
to the US public opinion. In an open challenge to president Barack
Obama, the Israeli PM accepted an invitation from the Republicans
to speak before Congress on March 3, 2015. In an inappropriate
setting, Netanyahu has spoken against the deal with Iran. The fact
that the Mossad was spying on the negotiations and that the
information that was collected was passed on to the pro-Israeli
Republican members of the Senate, is just another clumsy attempt
to block the reaching of a deal. It is also yet another episode in
the ongoing dispute between Washington and Tel Aviv. Despite all
of this, Israel will simply have to bite the bullet: no Iranian
nuclear facility shall be destroyed, Iran will be allowed to
continue to invest in nuclear technology for civilian use.
The rise of Iran threatens also other countries in the Gulf, with
Saudi Arabia in the forefront. This is one of the reasons that has
led president Obama to call for a meeting with Arabic countries in
Camp David to illustrate the contents of the deal sealed in
Lausanne. However, a question we should pose ourselves is: why did
the United States put so much effort in reaching a deal with Iran
when they knew that two of their traditional allies, Israel and
Saudi Arabia, would have been unhappy?
Barack Obama
Obama the negotiator
The answer is both ideological and practical. The Obama
administration has tried to put an end to the legacy of military
adventures, some of which a total disaster, initiated by George W.
Bush. Becoming involved in a proxy war, possibly led by Israel,
against Tehran would have nullified this principle and paved the
way for more instability in the region. The practical side of the
deal has to do with the number one priority at the moment: the
defeat of the ISIS led by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. And in this
struggle Iran is a precious ally. To date they are the sole Muslim
country to have acted on this issue. Had Iran supported the ISIS,
the eradication of islamic terrorism would have been a hard to
solve issue.
At this time, the details of the deal have yet to be defined and
will be signed by June. Benjamin Netanyahu will definitely
continue to do his best to block or modify the deal against
Tehran. The Jewish lobbies like AIPAC (American-Israeli Public
Affairs Committee) will lend a helping hand. After all, both
houses in Congress are held by Republicans. Yet, this is a
dangerous game, it implies a lack of respect for president Barack
Obama and for US sovereignty. Both factors could backfire for the
Israeli PM.
Whether the deal his “historic” or a “mistake”, the negotiations
go well beyond the mere nuclear nonproliferation issue and embrace
the prospect of a pacified Middle East that has been rid of the
ISIS. At the same time, a domino effect could lead other countries
in the Arabian Peninsula to seek nuclear weapons. There are rumors
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have begun discussing about nuclear
technologies.
Unlike his predecessors, Barack Obama, has introduced an
innovative concept when it comes to foreign policy: you should
negotiate with your enemy, measure its goodwill, leave any
judgements or prejudices aside. A negotiated solution is sought to
avoid going to war. A radical approach if compared to the ideas
waged by George Bush Jr. and Benjamin Netanyahu.
It was since 1979 that the United States and Iran had no
diplomatic ties. On one side a “rogue state”, the US definition,
the “Great Satan”, the Iranian definition, on the other. In
between the Israeli PM that has labelled Tehran “the greatest
terrorist state in the world”. The standoff lasted a good 35 years
and has led to nowhere, it didn't solve the nuclear issue, nor the
instability in the Middle East.
The same pragmatic approach was adopted by Barack Obama with Cuba.
His way of acting in foreign policy has no winners, nor losers.
Common sense prevails while ideological extremisms are set aside.
The sanctions against Iran have also lent a helping hand.
Initially imposed by the United Nations in 2006 and confirmed in
2008, they were also enacted by the European Union since 2008.
They definitely played a role in breaking a stall that had been
lasting for 12 years.
But we have to give credit to the boldness of the US president, a
Nobel Peace Prize, who has tried to break the vicious circles of
tensions, misunderstandings and wars.
