Iranian dilemma: US demonstrating double standard approach

The nuclear arms control negotiations between the United States and the USSR in the 1970s and 1980s had less significance than the current talks with Iran, said Michael Mandelbaum, stressing that stakes in the Iran talks are “extraordinarily high.”

Although the P5+1 nuclear negotiations are believed to be aimed at creating a peaceful future for the Middle Eastern region, Washington continues to beat the war drums warning about an alleged Iranian nuclear menace and threatening to bomb the Middle Eastern state.Despite the agreements reached in Brussels, american experts continue to whip up tension around the Iranian nuclear program. So Michael Mandelbaum, the expert expressed his doubts regarding whether the United States will be able to keep track of all nuclear-related activity Tehran is conducting. Professor Mandelbaum also pointed out that Iran could impose limits on access to its nuclear sites, making adequate verification impossible.

“If the Islamic Republic becomes a nuclear weapons state, other Middle Eastern countries will likely get nuclear weapons of their own. The region will have several, not merely two, nuclear powers, and none of them will be confident that its nuclear arsenal can survive a surprise attack by a regional adversary,” the professor insisted.

The US-USSR arms control negotiations of the 1970s and 1980s had less significance than the current nuclear talks with Tehran, emphasized Professor Michael Mandelbaum, Director of the American Foreign Policy program at Johns Hopkins University.

On the other hand, it depends on the details of the future agreement if launching inspections would require approval from the United Nations Security Council. Such a provision could significantly complicate the work of nuclear inspectors, he added.

According to the expert, one of the purposes of the agreement with Iran pursued by the US President is to integrate Tehran into the global economy.

Obama believes that Iran’s “greater exposure to the world” will swing the balance in Washington’s favor, transforming both Iranian society and Iranian politics, Michael Mandelbaum emphasized.

However, it seems that Professor Mandelbaum is a proponent of a military solution for Washington’s Iranian dilemma. The American expert stressed that the only certain way to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons is to “destroy its facilities for doing so.”While the Obama cabinet is depicting the nuclear agreement with Iran as the alternative to air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the military option should remain on the table, the expert insisted.

“There is no higher or more urgent current American interest beyond the country’s borders than keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of a theocratic anti-American regime located in a region that harbors much of the oil on which the global economy depends,” Michael Mandelbaum stressed.

According to the US expert, if President Obama refuses to use military force against Iran, in order to prevent it from developing its nuclear program, that would mean that American foreign policy “has changed in a fundamental way.”

It still remains unclear, why the United States turned a blind eye to the Israeli nuclear program in 1960s, allowing the Middle Eastern nation to develop atomic weapons. Recently disclosed US government documents have showed that Washington repeatedly missed warning signs about Jerusalem’s Dimona nuclear site creation. By threatening to bomb Iran, Washington is evidently demonstrating a double standard approach.

By Sputnik News