Iran’s politics stand in the way of a nuclear deal
Iran’s leadership has once again equivocated after agreeing to a deal that would ease its nuclear standoff with the West. But this time, that may be as much a product of the nation’s smoldering political crisis as it is a negotiating tactic, political analysts and Iran experts said.
Tehran has yet to state publicly why it objects to the deal, in which it would ship its low-enriched uranium out of the country for additional processing and eventual return as fuel rods for a civilian reactor. But Iran experts say the very caustic, and very public, nature of the debate in Iran over the proposed nuclear deal suggests that the deep divisions cemented by the summer’s disputed presidential election have complicated, if not undermined, the ability to resolve such a major issue.
“Since the 1979 revolution it is rare for the political elite to disagree so openly with an issue of this significance,” said Mehrzad Boroujerdi, a political scientist at Syracuse University. [continued…]
What do we want from Iran?
We are a diverse society of nearly 300 million people with wide spectrum of opinions on any subject. Even a simple issue as healthcare has created difficulty for our nation.
But when we play the hideous came of hypocrisy, it makes me stop and think about our motivations. With respect to Iran, any prospect for a non-belligerent foreign policy by US congress toward Iran is not expected. The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday passed the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, a bill targeting Tehran and the firms conducting energy business with Iran. The recent bill, part of a larger effort to hurt Iranian people, was instigated to force Iran to abandon her nuclear enrichment program. Those who voted for the bill assumed that they were giving the Obama administration stronger powers to sanction companies that provide Iranian people gasoline, diesel and other refined petroleum fuels.
The bill would give a legitimate reason to Iran to fear US government sincerity for fair play. This action is a hideous expression of hypocrisy. Can Iranian people trust us when we are urging China, Japan to buy less oil from Iran to hurt Iranian people
[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/22/ap/cabstatepent/main5409385.shtml]?
I suggest the following three steps to correct our failed foreign policy with respect to the Middle East:
1. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Iranian Consortium:
USA should join the consortium among others Japan, Germany, France and England to actively monitor the Iranian fuel cycle activity too. IAEA has consistently asserted that the agency could not find any indications that Iran is diverting the fuel cycle for nuclear bomb development. Iran has asserted that their activities are limited to development of fuel for nuclear reactor.
2. Nuclear Shield
An international nuclear shield for all nations in the Middle East, including Iran, from nuclear bomb states;
3. A nuclear- bomb-free Middle East
This action will remove any pressure from Iran to develop nuclear bomb in the future for deterrence against nuclear bomb Israeli state.
Our representative in the Congress must stop the hideous play of hypocrisy and face the facts in the Middle East. Israel has nuclear bombs, Iran does not! Should we not start with Israel? How hurting Iranian people would help us with our longterm national interests?