The article critiques the double standards in U.S. foreign policy regarding Iran’s nuclear disarmament, highlighting the ineffectiveness of sanctions, the historical context of Iran’s nuclear program, and the need for more equitable diplomatic negotiations. It argues against the comparisons made between Iran and other countries, emphasizing the hypocrisy in disarmament expectations.
The topic of Iran’s nuclear program remains prominent in U.S. foreign policy, characterized by a recent Wall Street Journal article calling for Iran’s complete nuclear disarmament. This article draws comparisons with South Africa and Libya, suggesting that rigorous pressure, including sanctions and military intimidation, is essential for Iran’s compliance. However, this perspective neglects Iran’s historical context and the inconsistencies in U.S. and Israeli actions regarding nuclear disarmament, indicating a need for respectful negotiation rather than coercion.
A major flaw in the report’s argument is the comparison of Iran with South Africa and Libya. South Africa voluntarily dismantled its nuclear program amid a peaceful transition from apartheid, not because of external coercion. In contrast, Libya abandoned its nuclear aspirations following the U.S. attack on Iraq, which did not guarantee its safety from Western intervention. Iran recognizes these precedents, leading to skepticism regarding the wisdom of unilateral disarmament in enhancing its security.
There exists a stark double standard surrounding Iran’s nuclear disarmament expectations. Iran honors the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and regularly permits inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In stark contrast, Israel possesses nuclear weapons, has never signed the NPT, and refuses international oversight, yet is not pressured to relinquish its arsenal. If the ultimate goal is true non-proliferation, equal standards must apply to all countries, not just those perceived as adversaries.
Contrary to the article’s depiction of Iran as merely stalling negotiations, the recent past tells a different story. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) placed strict limitations on Iran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for alleviating sanctions, a deal Iran adhered to, as confirmed by the IAEA. However, following the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal in 2018 and reinstatement of sanctions, Iran’s trust eroded, marking a significant setback in U.S.-Iran relations.
After the U.S. departure from the JCPOA, Iran initially maintained its commitments, hoping Europe would honor their end of the agreement. When it became evident that sanctions would persist, Iran opted to reduce its obligations. The narrative that Iran is solely to blame for any breaches is a distorted representation of events.
Interestingly, those who opposed the JCPOA are now advocating for a new agreement demanding Iran’s total disarmament while offering little to no concessions in return, which raises concerns about fairness.
The article also argues that increased sanctions will force Iran’s weak economy to capitulate. Historically, this strategy has proven ineffective; while sanctions have undoubtedly burdened everyday Iranians, they have not toppled the Iranian government or achieved nuclear disarmament. Instead, they have driven Iran toward new economic partnerships with nations such as China and Russia, reaffirming its resilience.
The assertion regarding an impending economic collapse in Iran is misleading. The country has adapted to long-standing economic strains by bolstering domestic production and establishing new trade relations. Furthermore, sanctions primarily impact civilians—causing inflation and shortages—rather than compelling governmental changes. If the U.S. intends to support the Iranian populace, it should return to genuine diplomacy instead of exacerbating economic suffering.
The discussion implies that Iran must choose between disarmament or conflict, asserting that resistance will invite attacks on its nuclear facilities. However, the real instability in West Asia stems not from Iran’s nuclear ambitions but from Western military actions and support for authoritarian regimes. The focus on Iran’s nuclear program distracts from the broader geopolitical realities.
Advocates for disarmament often wield nuclear weapons themselves, illustrating a troubling hypocrisy where non-proliferation standards are only applied to adversaries of the U.S. Iran has repeatedly expressed its willingness to negotiate, but it cannot accept terms that demand complete disarmament without reciprocal concessions.
Therefore, the U.S. should abandon historical mistakes and approach diplomacy with mutual respect and dialogue. Achieving a fair and enduring agreement necessitates acknowledging the complexities of international relations rather than resorting to threats and intimidation.
The discussion surrounding Iran’s nuclear program highlights the double standards in U.S. and Israeli policies regarding nuclear disarmament. Historical examples of disarmament from South Africa and Libya do not parallel Iran’s situation, revealing inherent contradictions. Additionally, the effectiveness of sanctions as a strategy for policy change is questionable, as they primarily harm civilians while failing to alter government behavior. Ultimately, pursuing genuine diplomacy through mutual respect and understanding, rather than coercion, is essential for achieving lasting peace in the region.
Original Source: www.tehrantimes.com
