Friends, as well as the foes of Iran, are aghast at the rigid stance Iran has adopted in the matter of the nuclear discord. No one can question Iran's inherent right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. What the international community and USA, UK and Israel apprehend is that it could be a bid to acquire an atomic bomb.
Having signed NPT, Iran is honour-bound to ensure that its uranium enrichment would go thus far and no further. IAEA is, therefore, the right organisation to supervise the technological development in progress.
What raises doubt is that during the negotiations that have taken place Iran has, not been fully co-operative. The West too is guilty of precipitating pressure and threatening military action if Iran does not concede in the opinion of the wesk, their demands.
At the inception of atomic age USA intended to safeguard and ensure its monopoly. But resurgent USSR emboldened by its triumph in WW II denied it. America, therefore, directly helped UK and France to acquire nuclear know-how to confront Russia in Europe and indirectly provided the capability to Israel for its own strategic interests in the Middle-East.
Initially China was assisted by Russia as a communist comrade to acquire the technology and later following its rift with USSR, it suited the West if China became a member of the exclusive nuclear club, which was determined to prevent all other countries joining the race. It is, therefore, surprising how India and Pakistan got away with it.
Either USA was too occupied with the cold war to pay close attention to the Indian preparations or it purposely turned a blind eye to counter China across the borders.
However it came as a real shock to Washington when Pakistan exploded what they called the Islamic Bomb. Clinton tried his utmost to prevent it. No amount of carrots or threats of sticks could stop Pakistan going ahead as once the arch enemy India acquired the bomb it became a matter of life and death as also pride and prestige for Pakistan.
Post 9/11 America's greatest concern has been al Qaeda getting hold of nuclear weapon. Libya was neutralised, Iraq's attempt some year's back was nipped in the bud, courtesy Israel. Even after the Gulf war defeat Saddam was not cowed and the administration despite lack of evidence genuinely believed that Iraq did possess nuclear technology which had to be destroyed by unilateral war, if necessary.
Now that no WMDS have been found in Iraq, the US attention has turned to Iran, No 2 on the axis of evil list. Iran's hesitation to unconditionally open their plants for inspection has further confirmed the suspicions that Iran is indeed determined to have the bomb and all the pretensions of "technology for peaceful purposes" is hogwash.
Presently America, not being in the position to take military action, wants to resort to direct or third party negotiations, but makes no secret of using force, if necessary.
In this respect Israel's warnings are significant.
Iran is well aware that if the matter is taken to U. N. Security Council on the grounds of violation of N. P. T. it may entail sanctions which would hurt, but is pretty confident that the international community is not in agreement and Russia and China with veto powers would stall it. Unlike Iraq and North Korea Iran is a democracy and its Islamic government though unpalatable to US has the support of the people of the country and the Muslim world in general. Ahmedinijad, the outspoken president, therefore gets away blowing hot and cold in the negotiations going to the extent of calling for wiping out Israel from the face of the earth.
Subsequently he has questioned the veracity of the "holocaust" and if it did happen proposed that the state of Israel be located in Europe instead of in the Middle-East.
The image of El Baradai, head of IAEA, has gone up after winning the Nobel Prize. He advocates patience notwithstanding Iran's stand and is pretty confident that by quiet diplomacy the discord may be resolved. Ahmedinijad's outbursts of defiance are more for local consumption with a view to self-respect and should not be taken on their face value.
The clerics ruling the country may appear to be uncompromising on matters of religion but they have enough savvy to safeguard Iran's long-term interest.
Comments
Comments are closed.