Iran’s stand on nuclear enrichment at home is legally justified, morally and ethically correct, and if international relations are not run on any legal or moral grounds then it is not any fault of Iran to forego its right only because it has not been able, regarding its peaceful intentions, to satisfy fanatic Christian-Judo lobbies influencing gullible George W Bush in Washington.

The rise of Islamic nations from abject poverty, economic and intellectual, that began in the last quarter of 20th century cannot be held back by terrorist or violent outfits like Al-Qaeda, Jesh Mohammad, Jesh Janghavi, Sipah-e-Sahaba operating in or from the lands of Islam etc or any external half wit jingoist who cannot see the nations of Islam to advance technologically, educationally and  economically because he does not have faith in their ideology, and because they eat, drink and dress differently.

There is no element of surprise in Iran ’s stand on its nuclear programme and if some quarters are painting it as such they are doing so with ulterior motives. Iran has always maintained that it will never compromise on the nuclear fuel cycle.

Even in October 2004 when the European Troika (Britain, France and Germany) was drafting proposals offering incentives to Iran to stop its research on nuclear fuel, Mr Hossein Mousavian, top national security official involved in the nuclear negotiations, said, ‘We would be willing to consider any package that recognises the full right of Iran to enjoy peaceful nuclear technology within the framework of the NPT (nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty).’

He made it clear that Iran would reject any European proposal for a complete cessation of its work on the nuclear fuel cycle, but might be willing to consider further ‘confidence-building’ measures and extend its suspension of uranium enrichment.

He said, ‘We would be willing to consider any package that recognises the full right of Iran to enjoy peaceful nuclear technology within the framework of the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).’ ‘But Iran is not prepared for cessation. Any package includ-ing a cessation of fuel cycle work would be rejected by Iran ,’ he insisted.

By that time Iran was already exercising voluntary moratorium on its enrichment activities hoping that some sort of verifiable mechanism would be established to monitor Iran ’s nuclear programme in total. The troika was working at another plane.

It simply failed to notice the seriousness of Iranian nation regarding its nuclear assets. They returned Ahmedi Nijad in June, 2005 to whip its nuclear programme to maturity as early as possible. His government could not sit on the nuclear programme depend-ing on European promises. The Troika even failed to notice the diabolical plan of the US , under the influence of Zionist lobbies there, to neutralise Iran ’s nuclear programme altogether.

The Troika missed the opportunity to solve the problem amicably; however, Iran was blamed for sabotaging the negotiations as it had to restart its research work on Uranium enrichment in January 2006 as enrichment facility could not be kept disused for that long and to protect its sensitive parts from going rotten, Iranians had to restart enrichment research work.

The UNSC sanctions slapped on Iran on 23rd December, 2006 are not going to make any difference regarding situation on the ground. Iran cannot be held back from pursuing its national agenda on Nuclear Energy. There are five aspects of the problem we need to survey to understand Iran’ s nuclear issue.

Firstly, Iran-US nuclear row has certain elements that don’t have any meeting grounds as long as Mr. Bush is in power; hence no amicable solution to the issue is possible. The US foreign policy agenda on Iran goes beyond nuclear issue and it cannot live with the present governmental set-up of Iran . By allocating substantial budgetary amount for regime-change in Iran , the US has manifested that it has not settled own with the fact of loosing Iran in 1979 and wants to recover it at all costs: the nuclear issue is only a bargaining chip.

Secondly, the European double standards on nuclear issue, apart from being  outrage-ous and nonsensical, they are illegal, unethical and immoral and call for reconside-ration of their outlook on Iran ’s nuclear activities.

There are about 442 nuclear reactors working all over the world and as a result of the debate over how to move to non-carbon-based fuels as many as 251 new nuclear reactors are said to be in the process of being commissioned world wide. With this perspective, it is nothing less than a total debauchery to demand of Iran to suspend its nuclear programme.

Thirdly, Iran ’s nuclear programme has commercial orientation that needs to be understood. By going for nuclear energy Iran will save on tremendous amount of oil to augment its oil exports and their durability. Iran ’s enrichment programme is also purely domestic as well as commercial. With the increase of 251 new nuclear reactors adding to the present total and many more in the offing, the present demand of enriched uranium will push its price higher up the scale. The present price of Uranium before it is processed stands at $72.5 per pound and it is expected to rise higher in 2007, hitting $100 per pound. Countries with enrichment facilities will, of course, benefit from Uranium bonanza in near future.

Fourthly, the European-US concern over Iran ’s nuclear programme is misplaced and cannot be substantiated by facts. If IAEA cannot have any verifiable mechanism to monitor Iran ’s nuclear activities, then there is a big question mark on its utility as a specific purpose organisation. With its 250 inspectors it is monitoring nuclear activities of 442 nuclear reactors around the globe without complain and if only one new reactor and an enrichment facility of Iran is added to the list the whole system crumbles down. It is simply not understandable.

Fifthly, the European-US nexus wants to offer Iran , Libya-style nuclear deal in which Iran should surrender some of its sensitive nuclear capabilities — such as the fuel cycle — in return for diplomatic and trade incentives. It tantamounts to ignoring certain vital geographical, cultural and political realities, which will not 
help any side affect tangible solution to the issue.

You cannot have the same attitude towards a nation of 5 million and that of  65 million, that is sitting on the 5th largest proven oil reserves of the world and that too at the neck of the gulf sustaining about 25 per cent of world’s energy needs: only children and lunatics can play with fires affording the luxury of ignoring the consequences of the highly unpredictable venture.

Information

The Troika missed the opportunity to solve the problem amicably; however, Iran was blamed for sabotaging the nego-tiations as it had to restart its research work  on Uranium enrichment in January 2006 as enrich-ment facility could not be kept disused for that long and to protect its sensitive parts from going rotten,  Iranians had to restart enrichment research work.

First appeared in Pakistan Observer on Jan. 13, 2007