Why Iran Won't Budge on Nukes
By NAHID SIAMDOUST
08/08/08 "Time" -- Aug 6, 3:10 PM ET -- - When U.S. officials
appeal to the Iranian people over the heads of its regime, they
like to assume that Tehran's defiance on the nuclear issue
reflects only the extremist position of an unrepresentative
revolutionary leadership. Plainly, they haven't met Dr. Akbar
Etemad, who ran the nuclear program of the Shah's regime, which
was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The scientist
who first launched Iran's nuclear technology program under a
U.S.-backed regime in 1974 today urges the regime that stripped
him of his job to reject any international demand that it halt
uranium enrichment.
Dr. Etemad told an academic conference in Toronto last weekend,
"Iran already stopped nuclear enrichment at the behest of Europe
for more than a year [a reference to Tehran's suspension of
enrichment between late 2003 and mid-2005, to allow negotiations
with the European Union]. And what happened? Nothing."
Iran delivered its response to the latest Western offer on the
nuclear issue to E.U. officials in Brussels on Tuesday, and
reportedly avoided any mention of a freeze on uranium
enrichment. Britain, France and the U.S. have made clear that
the consequence of Iran turning down the current offer will be a
push for further U.N. sanctions against Tehran.
In an interview with TIME, the Swiss-educated scientist who
lives in Paris and heads a group of prominent Iranian exiles
that lobby against a military attack on Iran, said the solution
to the nuclear standoff lay in re-establishing relations between
Washington and Tehran. Although a senior U.S. diplomat joined
the European-led delegation that met with Iranian officials in
Geneva recently, Iran's response to the nuclear proposal may
make it difficult for the Bush Administration to create a
diplomatic opening.
Surprising as it may be to hear a member of the Shah's deposed
regime support the stance of the Islamic Republic in a
confrontation with the West, there is widespread concern among
Iran experts that the current Western strategy of demanding that
Iran forego the right to enrich uranium has created a diplomatic
dead end.
Writing in the International Herald Tribune last week, Trita
Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council, and
analyst Anatol Lieven, argued that insisting Iran give up its
right to any uranium enrichment is untenable, and instead
suggested that the Western powers base their demands on the
rights and limitations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -
which would allow the international community "to place a
verifiable cap on Iranian enrichment and other nuclear
capabilities well short of weaponization."
Dr. Etemad agrees that the NPT, which governs the peaceful
pursuit of nuclear energy under the supervision of the U.N.'s
International Atomic Energy Agency, holds the key. "The
Americans, when they need the NPT, they talk about it; when they
don't need it, they throw it away. You don't do that with an
international treaty," he said. Iran is a signatory to the NPT,
on the basis of which it is being held accountable by the United
Nations Security Council over transparency issues. But the NPT
allows signatories the right to enrich uranium, under IAEA
supervision, for peaceful purposes. The U.S. and its allies fear
that even building a peaceful enrichment capability would allow
Iran to covertly produce weapons-grade materiel, and have argued
that Tehran's violations of transparency and disclosure
requirements of the NPT should mean it has forfeited its right
to enrich uranium. But that argument has so far not been
embraced by the U.N. or the IAEA, which reports there is "no
evidence that Iran was working actively to build nuclear
weapons."
Even though Iran's known uranium enrichment activities occur
under the scrutiny of IAEA inspectors, the U.S. and its European
allies and Israel suspect Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons
capability. The charge infuriates Dr. Etemad. "With the Shah, we
also came to the conclusion that Iran was in great need of
nuclear energy because our population was steadily growing and
our gas and oil will run out. That's why even though I was in
the old regime, I should be fair to the new regime because they
are following the same line. To speak frankly, with its
bellicose behavior the West is pushing Iran towards nuclear
weapons, even if they don't want them now."
The latest proposal from the Western powers hoped to break the
deadlock by retreating from its demand that Iran shut down its
enrichment activities as a precondition for talks. Instead, the
new proposal suggests that Iran simply refrain from expanding
its current enrichment program for six weeks, during which time
the U.N. Security Council would refrain from imposing new
sanctions. And in that "freeze-for-freeze" interim, the two
sides would negotiate a more comprehensive deal. But there's no
sign thus far that Tehran is prepared to accept even that
proposal.
"The Europeans say stop enrichment and we'll talk, but the
Iranians already did that and nothing happened," said Dr. Etemad.
"At the time of the Shah, we signed contracts with both France
and Germany and even then they didn't deliver. If I were in the
current regime, I wouldn't trust the West. They don't even give
Iran civilian airplane parts, which is costing hundreds of
lives; why should they believe that they will give them enriched
uranium?" If that's the position of a liberal critic of the
regime, it's likely that the stance of the current Iranian
leadership on the nuclear issue enjoys widespread support among
Iranians.
To be sure, many Iranians also fear the consequences of
continued defiance. "What if this hard line means war?" asked
daytime-mechanic, nighttime-taxi driver Bahram, 24, in Tehran
recently, echoing concerns heard from a number of ordinary
Iranians.
"For years now, they are threatening us with an attack," Dr.
Etemad said, adding, "This is humiliating. We are not ants,"
referring to an Esquire interview with Admiral William Fallon
about Iran back in March, in which he is reported to have said,
"These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them."
"If you're weak, they attack you," says the scientist. "If
you're not weak, they won't attack you. We have to be a strong
country and end these humiliating threats. And being strong
means not listening to the foreigners." View this article on
Time.com
Click
on "comments" below to read or post
comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be
succinct, constructive and relevant to the story.
We encourage
engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do
not include personal information such as names,
addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines – those
including personal attacks and profanity –
are not permitted.
See our complete Comment
Policy and use
this link to notify us if you have
concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly
review and remove any inappropriate postings.
Send
Page To a Friend
In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and
educational purposes. Information Clearing House
has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
