The common interests of the United States and its allies in opposing Iran’s nuclear program under the leadership of President Bush became one of the most controversial nuclear cases and draw the attention of the world’s public opinion. Western countries believe that Iran is investigating, testing, and producing bombs. They are of the opinion that:
Abdul-Qadir Khan (the father of the Pakistani atomic bomb) and his network sponsor carry out the project of developing centrifuges in Iran and Libya, and also they are involved in designing and running Iran’s nuclear weapons program. They claim that Iran’s Shahab-3 missile is capable of carrying warheads (Jafari, 2009: 144) However, the issue of Iran’s nuclear program is part of a bigger issue that can be explained by two components:
A) Iran is seen as an obstacle to the newly emerging American order in our post-Cold War world.
B) The power of Iran is increasing rapidly.
The result of these two components is that, over time, Iran will become a bigger obstacle to the creation of the American world. But what do we mean by Iran becoming an obstacle? It means that the ideological characteristics of Iran’s political system and its foreign policy orientations are different with and even contrary to the goals and interests of the United States in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Central Asia and the Caucasus.
Americans believe that the Iranian secret nuclear program and developing a nuclear fuel cycle are aimed at producing highly enriched uranium that can be used to make nuclear weapons; Iran’s goal of acquiring nuclear weapons lies with the country’s inherent interest in the elimination of the Zionist regime and the “Jewish-Christian” civilization. (Corsi and Bard, 2005)
Yet, this claim has incited public opinion and international organizations and led to issuing various resolutions in the IAEA Board of Governors and the Security Council, as the Security Council adopted 1696, 1737, 1747 and 1803 resolutions under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations as well as the resolutions of 1835 and 1929 in order to impose sanctions against the Iranian government and people. These resolutions were adopted whereas there is no legal basis for any of the Security Council’s actions, and the allegations contained in these resolutions are in conflict with international law, the Charter of the United Nations as well as the mandatory rules of law. (Qalkhanbaz, 2010: 4)
Of course, it is not just that Iran is opposing the United States interests and agenda in the region and throughout the world; but even if Iran does not take any action against the United States, the mere existence and continuation of political and religious perspectives in this country will not allow America to carry out its ambitious plans in the Middle East.
By calling Iran a villainous country, the United States refers to Iran’s lack of correspondence with the ultimate image of the American world. (Minavand, 2004: 4) They think if Iran were to acquire weapons of mass destruction, it would probably equip Hezbollah of Lebanon, the Islamic Jihad and Hamas with such weapons whereas political authorities and Iran’s maraje’ (sources of emulation) had issued fatwas that forbid the use of weapons of mass destruction in addition to denouncing them in their speeches while identifying Iranians as victims of chemical weapons that Saddam used with the support of the west. Therefore, the ruling powers and governments that benefit from the international order would call for either subverting the system of governance in Iran or changing its behaviour and in any case, such a state should not achieve nuclear technology and knowledge. The pursuit of nuclear programs with the aim of acquiring nuclear weapons will bring security problems for Iran.
There are different views within Iran about the nuclear program. They may be divided into three major groups:
1) Those who favour the pursuit of nuclear energy;
2) Proponents of nuclear weapons capabilities;
3) Those who support the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Most of the Iranians including the elites and government officials favour the first and second perspectives while there are few supporters of the third. However, beyond the different views that exist, there are not enough and necessary justifications for achieving nuclear weapons at the level of the decision-making body of the country. (Hadian and Hormozi, 2010: 189) There are several reasons and factors for explaining Iran’s reluctance to pursue nuclear weapons including the following:
1) The risk of an arms race: Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon may incite its neighbours and other countries of the region to pursue a similar path. (Cordesman, 2009: 189)
2) The efforts of the states in the region to acquire nuclear weapons can turn into an arms race instead of moving towards creating a safe region free of all nuclear arsenals. (Russell, 2010: 99)
3) Losing the conventional superiority: In the event that Iran achieves nuclear weapons and the countries of the region and neighbours act similarly, Iran’s conventional superiority implies the existence of elements such as conventional weapons, population, geographic extent and geopolitical status, will be diminished.
4) Vulnerability due to the lack of the existence of the headquarters structure and advanced communication network:
Acquiring nuclear weapons requires possessing a nuclear defence capability, while the lack of the advanced structures for headquarters, controlling, and identification can cause irreparable damage to the country.
5) Emergence of nuclear terrorism: in addition to the threats posed by other countries’ efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, the danger of radical and terrorist groups acquiring such weapons, in turn, would pose a more serious threat. (Kellerhals, 2010: 190)
6) Institutionalizing the United States’ presence in the region: making the small countries in the region perceive a threat from Iran and pushing them closer to the United States. This could strengthen and consolidate the position of the United States in the region. (Cordesmam, 2010: 30)
7) The vulnerability to the costs of nuclear weapons production and maintenance: the production and maintenance of nuclear weapons cost a considerable amount of money. According to the 1998 Brookings Institution research, nuclear weapons have cost the United States about $5.5 trillion until 1996. (Atomic Audit, 1998: 191)
8) To Sour Iran’s Relations With Some Regional And International Actors: A sense of threat and danger from Iran can change relations between countries. Member states of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Persian Gulf have reconsidered their security priorities due to the threat posed by Iran and turned to buying new weapons and strengthening their military capabilities (Khaitous, 2010: 193).
9) The vulnerability to political, social and international costs: This, on the one hand, can lead to social and domestic discontent and, on the other hand, may increase the potential for conflict in the region and intensify international pressure. (iaea.org: 2010)
10) Domestic oppositions: as the powerful leverages, various individuals, groups and currents within the body of the government and society would oppose the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and dealing with this issue will be costly and difficult for the government. (Hadian, 2010: 371)
11) Prohibition in Islam: based on Islamic teachings, acquiring weapons of mass destruction is forbidden. Such ruling has been frequently and explicitly purposed by the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. (Khamenei, 2010: 28)
The United States and its allies (P5+1) pressures on Iran’s nuclear activities
The right of Iranian people to peruse peaceful nuclear technology is one of the clearest examples of “the right to development,” “the right of nations to dispose of natural resources” and “the right of nations to determine their own destinies.” These are fundamental rights of people and violating them would result in international accountability with respect to the victims.
With the rise of the issue of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear activities in the international system, the United States and the Zionist regime began to express their position, impose pressures and pose threats concerning such activities in a manner that influenced the IAEA Board of Governors to make decisions on the basis of political pressures and the threat of referring the issue to the Security Council of UN rather than technical aspects of the activities.
In addition to these pressures, the Zionist regime has repeatedly threatened the Islamic Republic of Iran with a military strike on nuclear facilities to be carried out as a “pre-emptive strike.”
“Referring Iran’s nuclear issue to the Security Council by IAEA is against the international laws and hence it is illegal. One cannot impose economic sanctions on a country because of perusing peaceful nuclear program” says Professor Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, chairman of Urosevic Research Foundation of London.” (Mojtahedzadeh, 2006)
However, according to Reuters, the United States plans to sell Israel $139 million worth of air-launched bombs including bunker busters that able to penetrate Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.
The Pentagon reported that the deal sought to maintain Israel’s qualitative advantage and advance United States strategic and tactical interests.” (Ebrahimi, 2004: 8)
In September 2006, the United States extended the economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran for five years until 2011, after they had been imposed when the United States embassy in Tehran was seized and closed. Moreover, the United States has been working hard to discourage and dissuade Russia from cooperation with Iran in the sphere of the construction of the Bushehr light-water reactor which was supposed to be installed by 2003 but faced delays.
The United States and the Zionist regime are determined to use military force against Iran if the political and economic pressures won’t work. Chossudovsky quotes Zbigniew Brzezinski as saying that “the Zionist regime is like a dog that the United States wants to make off the leash so that it will attack Iran on behalf of the United States.” (Chossudovsky, 2005)
Some of the United States Congress members, in a letter to Bush, insisted that action should be taken to stop Iran before the world suddenly finds itself supporting the international terrorism that is capable of producing a nuclear weapon. The world will not accept a new member of the nuclear weapons club. Iran should abandon its efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon and should know that such a weapon is not a guarantee of power, but a way to isolation and destruction. (Ebrahimi, 2004: 6-7)
Of course, the Zionist regime’s attempt to hinder and disrupt Iran’s nuclear program should be considered in the context of psychological warfare. Because the Zionist regime considers the silent war to be the only way to destroy the military equipment and hinder the nuclear program of Iran and in this regard the United States intelligence services openly support Israel. It should be noted that this psychological war is part of the Zionist measures to cover its violations of nuclear disarmament obligations, as not only Israel does not comply with the NPT, it has also become the only regime that possesses nuclear weapons in the Middle East (having at least 200 nuclear warheads) through the support that this regime received from the United States and Europe.
For the Zionist regime, Iran’s capability to acquire a nuclear weapon and its production represents the Soviet Union’s pursuit of such a weapon which had led to the ending of the United States atomic monopoly. (Buchanan, 2005)
The political experts believe that the Zionist regime attempts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. As mentioned, the most important part of such actions is the plan to assassinate key figures in the nuclear program of the country. The Zionist regime’s involvement in killing those scientists has sparked rumours such as the suspicions raised regarding the death of Ardashir Hoseynpour, a nuclear scientist who died due to the gassing in 2007. In other cases, we see the assassinations and martyrdom of the scientists of Iran’s nuclear program, such as Dr. Majid Shahriari and Dr. AliMohammadi, being carried out by Zionist forces since they are doing everything to slow down the process of enriching uranium in Iran. (Qalkhandaz, 2010: 6)
The United States and Zionist regime have used all kinds of political and economic tools as well as military threats and psychological warfare in an attempt to achieve their common agendas in stopping Iran’s nuclear program. Yet, so far they have not achieved their desired goal. It seems that the two governments try to build an international and regional consensus against the Iranian nuclear program. (Jafari, 2009: 148)
Another reflection of the double standards adopted by the international system toward the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program is determining the areas of material balance. The issue of determining those areas by IAEA has been subject to rigorous review and assessment and also this organization has employed the most modern equipment and best satellite images in this regard. To that end, while employing the technology of identifying and tracking isotopes, the IAEA inspectors have been able to design and deploy sensors that accurately record any movement of these materials. Installing these sensors at entrances, exits and gates of the nuclear facilities would provide the possibility of recording the transference of radioactive materials or fuel rods in Iran with high accuracy and without needing an IAEA inspector observing the entire process.
This technology has provided IAEA with continuous monitoring of the transfer of nuclear materials inside the facility which is beyond Iran’s primary legal obligations and would result in applying stricter verification mechanisms regarding Iran’s nuclear program. (Daryaei, 2010: 79) Nowadays, the IAEA has more than 800 cameras installed at nuclear facilities that are under its safeguards. Observing and monitoring more than 170 nuclear facilities of various countries including Iran, these monitoring cameras are connected to more than 400 monitoring systems. (Jessica Matheson, 2003: 14)
Despite the fact that the Zionist regime and the United States fear that Iran would build a nuclear bomb, the Israelis are aware of and worried about the changing of Washington’s political process since Barack Obama came to power. They are worried that Iran’s access to nuclear science will challenge the nuclear monopoly of the Zionist regime.
The more important concern of the Zionist regime is that the White House and European countries would listen to some of their oldest statesmen and recognizing nuclear Iran in the hope of changing the country’s behaviour. They know well that the new United States government will never accompany them in striking a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities; because Obama prefers to extend the hand of friendship to Tehran and to that end he will not authorize conducting any military operation against Iran.
The main goal of the Zionist regime is to stop or slow down the process of Iran’s nuclear research in a way that would not lead to engaging in a war. However, according to the intelligence chief of Mossad, it is unlikely that Israel conducts any type of military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. (Abdollahkhani, 2005: 265) On the other hand, the Zionist regime has always been attempting to call the attention of the world’s public opinion to nuclear threats posed by Iran. Moreover, Israel would continue its constructing projects as a major obstacle to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments