Iran - Again

What many of us often forget is that the people of Iran are human beings just like us.  Yet, a letter from the op-ed page of the New York Times stated that the only way to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons would be to bomb the country into submission.  This offends me. Iran and the USA may have been participating in a cold war against each other, but we have not been bombing each other's cities, nor have the two nations been in direct ground conflict with each other. Shouldn't diplomacy be given a chance before we see more American man and women come home in body bags?

In 1979-1980, I would have advocated blasting Iran off the map during the "Hostage Crisis". But as official US documents (carefully pieced together after having been shred) show, we were about to attempt to overthrow their democratically elected government. How could they trust any peace overture that could have been made? (especially when none were made for years.)  And yet, our current president overcame 35 years of hostilities to work with 5 other nations AND Iran to cut a deal that reduces the risk of nuclear war in the Middle East.

The following text was in an article written by Bill Moyers: 

"In its refinement of uranium, Iran has not progressed toward the level required for a nuclear weapon since its 2013 interim agreement with the global powers known as “the p-5 plus one” – for the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Instead, Iran has dialed back the level of refinement to below 5 percent (what’s needed for generating electricity) from its earlier level of 20 percent (needed for medical research) — compared with the 90-plus percent purity to build a nuclear weapon." 

This makes me wonder - Is Iran really the threat our media has made the country out to be? I doubt it.  But, if Iran were to restart Uranium refinement, it could trigger a Middle East arms race, as noted in the New York Times op-ed piece:

Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.

Iran is a different story. Extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its ambitions. Saudi, Egyptian and Turkish interests are complex and conflicting, but faced with Iran’s threat, all have concluded that nuclear weapons are essential.

If one ignores the bellicose position of the op-ed piece's author, John R. Bolton, one sees that the Saudis, Egyptians, and Turks have been considering going nuclear in response to Iran's position. Yet, the Iranians are willing to ratchet down their nuclear technology and use it (for now?) for peace. Currently, the Saudis and Iranians are on opposite sides of a war being fought in Yemen. Could you imagine what would happen if either (or both) nations had nuclear weapons at its disposal? Could you imagine what would happen (and I believe it would) if any of this material would make it out of the labs and into unauthorized hands?

To Israel, any but the most restrictive and emasculating deal is unacceptable - Iran is an existential threat to the Jewish state. But is this deal unacceptable to America's long term interests? Israel pays us no taxes. Israel does not vote in our elections. And Israel is not necessarily an ally we can trust. If the Prime Minister of Israel can destroy the hope for a two-state peace solution for Israel and Palestine in a reelection bid, can we trust him to act in other ways that benefit the United States?

Yes, gradual normalization of relations with Iran is a risk. But it is the only path that makes sense. As I see it, there will be three regional players jockeying for influence in the Middle East - Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. And it is America's interest to make sure that none of these powers becomes a hegemon - especially when the world is still addicted to Middle East Oil. America needs to disentangle itself from the Middle East, and a deal with Iran may be our ticket to leave the region. Given our headaches in the region since 1980, this may be the only time we can use that ticket and go home.  If the Chinese need that oil, let them get stuck in the regional quagmire!

Persia, Iran, no matter what one calls this nation, we must deal with it.

I can still remember that in my lifetime, the United States once considered Iran as one of its closest allies. And there is no reason not to do so today, save for a 35 year pissing match that was triggered by the Embassy Hostage Crisis and the United States getting exposed as preparing to overthrow the duly elected government of Iran.

This conflict between nations should not only be examined from the American side (we have just complaints), but from the Iranian side as well (where they also have just complaints). What would be the key issue getting in the way of normalizing relations between the two countries after a generation and a half, if Israel was not given a veto over our actions in the Middle East?  Both countries want to crush ISIS. Both countries want stability in the region. And both countries have legitimate concerns about the balance of power in the region.

Looking at the above map, one can easily see the regional importance of Iran - it borders part of the former USSR, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and shares the Persian Gulf with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, The U.A.E. and Oman. This country could either cause a lot of mischief, or be a valuable power for peace. But without normal diplomatic and trade relations, we have no direct way to influence them to work with us. (I must note that American soldiers are reported to being ferried over Iranian airspace to Afghanistan via foreign flagged aircraft, with the tacit approval of the Iranians. So there is something going on behind the scenes that few people want to talk about in a loud voice.) So it only makes sense to find ways to openly work with this country, if only because they hold a strategically important position in the region.

- - - - - -

When I started writing this entry, the P5+1 (5 Permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany - a major Iran trading partner) negotiations are taking place to resolve the West's issues with Iran's stated plans to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses. These negotiations have been extended for several months because both sides realized the importance of cutting a deal everyone could live with. 

As it was 35+ years ago, both sides have legitimate issues. From our perspective in the West, it's easy to understand our goal - this world does not need another nation with the capability of making nuclear weapons. When India and Pakistan developed their bombs, it took a lot of diplomacy to develop deals that preserved most of the pre-bomb status quo, and allowed both countries to save face while not getting into a nuclear arms race as the USA and USSR did after WW2. But Iran has a legitimate issue that we in the West don't think of - Tehran is one of the most polluted cities on Earth. Iran's leadership knows that it must lead the country out of the fossil fuel age, and sees nuclear energy as the best short term way to bridge the gap from a fossil fuel age and a renewable fuel age. They simply want to control their destiny - and this is very understandable.

When the Israeli PM, Bibi Netanyahu, was invited to speak to Congress, it was a slap in our president's face, and a violation of protocol. Congress does not make foreign policy. That power is solely invested in the executive branch of government. When Bibi spoke, he was against a deal with Iran, considering that nation's policies to be an existential threat to his country. And most in the GOP support Israel with unquestioned loyalty - as if they want to accelerate the "Second Coming" via support of Israel's bellicose policies. Bibi had no alternative to negotiations - and it appeared that he wanted the USA to fight a war against Iran that his country couldn't win alone.

Luckily, Obama is more cerebral in his thought patterns. He knows that we have a once in a generation chance to gradually shift Iran into a partner for peace. With the exceptions of Egypt and Jordan, no Middle East Muslim country has relations with Israel. Officially, they all call for Israel's destruction, while working very quietly with Israel on the side. This is what we would likely see several years after a deal with Iran. But it will take time to get there.

- - - - - -

Sadly, 47 US Senators wrote a letter to Iran attempting to undercut Obama's ability to work with the Iranians in negotiating a nuclear technology treaty. The NY Daily News labeled these Senators as traitors on its front page. And the Washington Post simply considers the actions of these senators irresponsible. Luckily, the Iranian leadership recognizes this as a Propaganda Ploy and responded accordingly, enlightening these Senators about what our Constitution and International Law say about the subject. And in an article in the Daily Kos, they note that Al Jazeera got it right - The Iran deal will be a Security Council Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolution, and likely be covered by a previous treaty ratified by our Legislative branch of government. I'll bet that these Senators now wish they had tried to make their point with softer words and actions....

- - - - - -

As I said in this entry's title - Iran is a country that must be dealt with. And it only makes sense for us to deal with Iran from a position of mutual respect, as only with respect will we be able to resolve our differences.....