21
may 2006
Iran’s nuclear programme in the eyes of some Arabs
After
several discussions with some well-known Arab thinkers on the sidelines of the
sixth Forum on Democracy, Development, and Free Trade, held in Doha last month,
I became more convinced than at any other time that some Arab intellectuals
could not approach or analyze current issues without emotional views and
outdated theories.
I
would not talk here about their enthusiastic support of Iran’s nuclear issue,
which reminded me of their great satisfaction with Pakistan’s nuclear tests in
1998. At the time, many Arab officials, intellectuals, and commentators had not
only viewed the event as a triumph for Arab/Islamic nations but also said that
the so-called Pakistan’s Islamic bomb would be used to liberate Palestine,
something Islamabad quickly denied fearing an Israeli airstrike.
I
would also bypass their numerous attempts to focus on Israel’s nuclear
programme as a justification for that of Iran’s, and their complete ignorance
of a potential catastrophic impact of Iran’s nuclear activities on the people
and environment of the Arab Gulf region, something that many experts have
already written about.
What
surprised me indeed was a scenario repeated by several intellectuals saying
that the Iranians’ current tough stance was aimed at forcing the West to seek a
deal with them. According to them, when the time comes for conducting such a
deal, Iran will propose to dismantle its nuclear facilities “in exchange for
the elimination of Israel’s nuclear capability”. Had not they been a bit shy,
they would have said “in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied
Palestinian territories”.
This
reminds one of a scenario sought by Iraq’s deposed president Saddam Hussain to
end the 1990 Gulf crisis. Shortly after his invasion of Kuwait on August 2,
1990, and in order to save face and build popularity among Arab and Muslim
masses, Saddam suggested withdrawing
from Kuwait in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian
territories, a proposal that was refused by the international community on the
grounds that invaders must not be rewarded in any form. However, many Arab
intellectuals were fooled by such an initiative to the extent that they
described it as the only solution to the crisis, ignoring the fate of Kuwait
and its people.
Apart
from this emotional analysis of the issue, several other Arab intellectuals
participating in the forum accused Washington of embracing a double-standard
policy, referring to its different approach to Iran and North Korea’s nuclear
issues. To them, Washington’s hostile position towards Tehran’s nuclear
programme is part of its anti-Islam and pro-Israel policy and aimed at
preventing Muslim countries from developing power that may threaten the Jewish
state, while its less tough stance towards Pyongyang is because the latter’s
nuclear capability does not pose a threat to Israel. To support their
allegation, they pointed to US reluctance on multiparty-negotiations to end the
crisis, like the six-nation talks on ending Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons
programme. The six-nation talks, including the US, Russia, China, Japan, and
the two Koreas, were launched in 2004 and have not yet resulted in achieving a
breakthrough.
The
answer to why the Americans are not enthusiastic about forming a similar
bargaining channel to deal with Iran’s nuclear issue is:
First,
Iran is a rich country and consequently economic and other assistance cannot be
used as temptation for giving up nuclear ambition. This is unlike the status of
impoverished and isolated North Korea.
Second,
while North Korea’s chronic short of energy can partially justify its nuclear
programme, Iran’s gigantic wealth of oil and gas leaves no room for believing any claim by
Tehran that developing nuclear capability is exclusively aimed at meeting the
country’s increasing need for energy. The Iranians, therefore, must have been
motivated by goals other than the declared ones.
Third,
in Northeast Asia where North, Korea is a secondary player with excellent
ideological and other ties with China, the region’s major power, Washington can
pin hopes on Beijing to influence Pyongyang at the bargaining table. This is
unlike the situation in the Gulf, where Iran represents the region’s biggest
and most powerful country, and all other players lack the sort of influence
needed to convince Tehran of giving up its nuclear plans.
And
fourth, unlike North Korea, whose nuclear weapons programme is only a tool to
blackmail the West and ensure its Stalinist regime’s survival, Iran develops
nuclear capability with the aim of playing a hegemonic role in the region and
having the upper hand over the Arab Gulf states. Moreover, Iran’s nuclear
ambition is also motivated by religious myths. Since coming to power in August
2005, Iranian conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly talked
about making Iran powerful in preparation for the reappearance of Shiite
Muslims’ hidden 12th Imam, Al-Mahdi.
Academic
researcher and lecturer on Asian affairs
Sun,
21 May 2006 07:17:07 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
From: "Naim S. Mahlab" <nsm@videotron.ca>
What
I find really disturbing about the race to acquire nuclear weapons, is the fact
that the nations of the world are behaving like children with a new toy, you
have one, so I must have one.
They
seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that this is a deadly toy. All they
have to do is look at Chernobyl in the Ukraine, and the Three Mile Island
radiation leak in the USA.
All
we need is one insane operator to use a small nuclear device to destroy the
Globe.
We
have problems disposing of the spent fuel rods which are stored is some
isolated space with a prayer and the hope that nothing will go wrong. Radiation
in these spent rods can last for centuries.
Hey
guys, we inhabit a small space ship. One mistake and we all go the way of the
dinosaurs
Should
we not concentrate our efforts on securing the planet
rather
than destroying it ?. Do not forget that it is 'we' who will pay the price of
our madness.
Our
differences are not that big that they cannot be resolved with dialogue and a pinch of common sense and
good faith.
Please
think about it before it is too late.
Naim S. Mahlab
Montreal