The dominant Western media have been
telling the world that it is because of the sanctions imposed upon Iran that it
has agreed to curb its nuclear activities for six months in exchange for
partial sanctions relief. It is true that inhuman, unjust sanctions especially
on Iran’s oil trade and its banking arrangements have hurt its people which is
why they had pinned so much hope on the newly elected President, Hassan
Rouhani, to bring about changes that would ameliorate their situation. But that
is not the only reason for the willingness of the present leadership to limit
its uranium enrichment to a maximum of 5% or dilute its stock of 20% enriched
uranium or cease the construction of the Arak reactor.
In 2003, Iran, under President
Muhammad Khatami, with Rouhani as his chief nuclear negotiator, had voluntarily
suspended its enrichment programme for two years and allowed intrusive
inspections by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in order to
allay US and European fears about its nuclear programme. The then US President,
George W. Bush, ignored this gesture and ratcheted up sanctions. He was acting
in accordance with the diabolical agenda of the neo-conservatives (neo-cons)
who in turn were in collusion with Zionist lobbies in the US and the Israeli
elite in Tel Aviv.
In defiance of the US, Khatami’s
successor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, escalated uranium enrichment and increased the
installation of centrifuges from 164 in 2003 to 19,000 in 2013. His defiance,
compounded by his belligerence, lent credence in Western circles to the
erroneous view that Iran was on the verge of acquiring a bomb.
The Khatami-Rouhani approach towards
the nuclear question, in contrast to Ahmadinejad’s, helps to explain why there
was a breakthrough in the negotiations that culminated in an interim nuclear
agreement between Iran, on the one hand, and the five UN Security Council
members (Britain, China, France, Russia and the US) and Germany,( 5 plus 1), on
the other, in Geneva on the 24th of November 2013. Rational,
realistic and reform-oriented and yet conscious of the importance of adhering
to ethical principles, Iranian leaders of this ilk reflect the sentiments of
their people. After a hiatus of eight years, this type of leadership has
re-emerged in Iran and is determined to prove to its most sceptical critics
that its nuclear programme is truly peaceful and transparent.
Given this commitment, the Rouhani
government should now embark upon a massive campaign to eliminate the whole of
West Asia and North Africa (WANA) of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of
mass destruction (WMD). The people of WANA will give enthusiastic support to
such a cause. It should be the first phase of a worldwide campaign to get rid
of WMD everywhere.
In mobilising the people of WANA,
Iran as an Islamic Republic has an advantage. As its leaders have repeatedly
reminded their people, nuclear weapons are haram (prohibited) in Islam.
They are haram because they invariably kill the innocent, bring death to
unborn generations, and devastate the natural environment.
The one state in WANA that possesses
a nuclear arsenal with perhaps 400 nuclear warheads can be expected to oppose
this noble struggle to ban nuclear and other WMD. Its opposition will reveal
what Israel really means by its concern for its “security.” Israel has
always equated security with hegemony. It is because of this equation that
Israel is obsessed with the perpetuation of a WANA where no other state or
movement has even an ounce of strength to mount the tiniest challenge to its
military and technological supremacy. Hence its preoccupation with ensuring
that it remains the sole nuclear weapons state in WANA ad
infinitum. This is why it wants to destroy Iran’s entire nuclear
programme, however peaceful it maybe.
For Israel, the targeting of Iran
goes beyond its nuclear programme. In the last five years or so, Israeli elites
have often exploited the Shia-Sunni divide as a way of creating hatred and
animosity between Shia Iran and its Sunni neighbours. Of course, there
are other states in WANA that are also actively involved in fuelling this
sectarian antagonism which often leads to violence and massacres.
But it is not Israel’s indirect
involvement in the Sunni-Shia conflict or its venom towards Iran which has had
a negative impact on the State, especially in Europe, and to a much lesser
extent, in the US. It is Israel’s cruel and often oppressive treatment of the
Palestinians which has eroded its standing in countries such as Italy, France,
Germany and Britain. The extreme, aggressive positions adopted by leaders like
Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu over the last fifteen years have revealed
to many in the West the ugly side of Israel. The new media in particular have
played an important role in exposing Israel’s stark injustices against the
Palestinian people. Pro- Palestinian movements in different parts of the
world — the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) network is a good example —
have also become more organised and focussed in raising awareness about the
plight of the Palestinians.
These are some of the reasons why
the Israeli elite or pro- Israel Zionist lobbies in countries such as Britain
and France no longer command as much influence as they once did. In fact, in
the US itself — still the bastion of Israeli and Zionist power — the Zionist
lobbies appear to be less united and more divided in exercising their influence
over the political process. They were split for instance on the question
of Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012 and, indeed, the segment opposed to his
return to the White House lost the battle.
The decline of Israeli and Zionist
influence in Europe and, to a limited degree, the US is also linked to the
growing disenchantment in the West with war and violence associated with war.
Israel is seen especially among anti-war activists in Europe as a state that is
constantly pushing for war. This was obvious in the case of Iraq in 2003. It
has become even more obvious in the case of Iran. More and more people now know
that it is Israel — more than any other state — that wants the US to take
military action against Iran. But people in most places today have no appetite
for war. What this means is that they have very little sympathy for Israel’s
posturing.
Because their citizens have turned
against war, leaders in the democratic West have no choice but to follow suit.
This is true of Britain as it is of France and Germany. In the US, it was
partly because of the popular mood that Obama pulled back from a military
strike against Syria. And in Iran, Obama is fully aware that the alternative to
a negotiated settlement of the nuclear crisis is war — a war which the American
people will not support.
Besides, Obama himself — it is
becoming more apparent in his second term — does not want to be remembered as
the President who got his people embroiled in wars. He would rather be honoured
in history as the leader who extricated his nation from wars or desisted from
going to war.
This may well be the real
significance of the interim agreement between Iran and the 5 plus 1. It may
have averted yet another war, another unimaginable catastrophe.
