Iran’s Nuclear Program: An Examination of Western Double Standards in Diplomacy

The article discusses the ongoing discourse on Iran’s nuclear program, criticizing the double standards of Western policies demanding disarmament while exempting allies like Israel. It emphasizes the historical context of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and advocates for respectful negotiations instead of coercion, highlighting the failures of sanctions and underscoring the importance of mutual respect in diplomacy.

The discourse surrounding Iran’s nuclear program remains a significant element of U.S. foreign policy. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal argues for the total disarmament of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, drawing parallels to South Africa’s disarmament in 1990 and Libya’s renunciation in 2003. However, it posits that this outcome can only be achieved through stringent pressures, including sanctions and military intimidation, a viewpoint that reflects a critical distortion of Iran’s historical context and the unfair standards applied to its diplomatic engagement.

The article’s premise suggesting that Iran should imitate South Africa and Libya is unfounded. South Africa disbanded its nuclear arsenal during a transition away from apartheid, not due to external coercion, while Libya’s disarmament followed U.S. military action and did not safeguard the regime from subsequent repercussions. Iran acknowledges this history and perceives no incentive to unilaterally disarm, as it recognizes the inherent risks such actions pose to its national security.

Moreover, the expectation that Iran should relinquish its nuclear ambitions highlights a significant double standard. Iran is compliant with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and consistently accommodates inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In stark contrast, Israel, despite possessing nuclear weapons, remains outside the NPT framework and allows no inspections of its facilities. This uneven application of standards raises questions regarding the actual commitment to non-proliferation among Western powers.

The assertion that Iran exploits negotiations for time to advance its nuclear agenda is misleading. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) represented a milestone in nuclear diplomacy, imposing strict limitations on Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanction relief. Iran upheld its commitments, as verified by the IAEA, until the U.S. abruptly exited the agreement in 2018, undermining confidence in diplomatic resolutions. Following the U.S. withdrawal, Iran’s gradual scaling back of its commitments was in direct response to the ineffectiveness of the agreement due to renewed sanctions.

Claims that Iran’s economy is on the verge of collapse, and thus will comply with increased sanctions, are inaccurate. Sanctions have failed to destabilize the Iranian government; instead, they have compelled Iran to seek new economic partnerships with countries like China and Russia. While the Iranian populace endures inflation and shortages, the sanctions have not altered government policy but have reinforced national resilience against foreign pressure.

The article insinuates that the choice before Iran is between nuclear disarmament and conflict, yet it is crucial to recognize that the region’s instability stems more from Western military interventions than from Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The insistence that Iran disarm while nuclear weapons are permitted for U.S. allies exemplifies a fundamental hypocrisy. Iran’s commitment to dialogue exists, provided it does not entail capitulation without compensation.

In conclusion, Washington must pivot towards a more equitable approach to negotiations, characterized by mutual respect rather than coercion. This shift is essential for fostering a fair and lasting resolution to the tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. Only through genuine dialogue can a substantive agreement be reached, ensuring stability in West Asia.

In summary, the tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program highlight significant discrepancies in Western policy and diplomatic rhetoric. By applying different standards to Iran and its adversaries, the West risks exacerbating conflicts rather than resolving them. A shift towards respectful and equitable negotiations is necessary to achieve lasting peace and stability in the region.

Original Source: www.tehrantimes.com