TEHRAN (FNA)- Despite the deal-breaking interventions of the French government in the latest round of talks between Iran and the six world powers to find a solution for Irans nuclear standoff, international observers are still hopeful that the talks today can yield significant results, satisfying the both sides and putting an end to the decade-long conflicts and disputes.According to the prominent London-based Iranian university professor and author, Irans nuclear program has been used by the United States and its allies to put pressure on Iran and scuttle its political and scientific progress. Prof. Abbas Edalat believes that the United States should abandon its policy of carrot and stick and engage in a constructive dialog with Iran based on mutual respect to win the confidence of the Iranian nation.
Clearly, it would take a long time for the US to gain the trust of Iranian people and this can only be achieved by recognizing Irans rights for a civilian nuclear program including home enrichment of uranium for energy production Only when the US treats Iran with respect as a sovereign nation, the process of reconciliation and looking forward to mutual cooperation and collaboration in many areas of joint interests can begin, said Prof. Edalat in an exclusive interview with the Fars News Agency.
Abbas Edalat is Professor of Computer Science and Mathematics at Imperial College London where he has worked since 1989. He had formerly been a lecturer at the Department of Mathematical Sciences of Sharif University of Technology in Tehran. In 1999, he founded the Science and Arts Foundation, an educational NGO, which, with support from Sharif University, established the first modern computer sites with Internet access for some 250 schools in various provinces in Iran.
In Autumn 2005, he founded the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, which has consistently worked in the past eight years with anti-war movements in the US and Europe to raise awareness in the West about Iran's civilian nuclear program and expose Israeli and neo-conservative lies about it in the western media. Edalat has also pioneered research into the long-term traumatic impact of the Mongol invasions in the political, social and scientific history of Iran and the wider Islamic region.
What follows is the text of FNAs interview with Prof. Abbas Edalat about Irans nuclear program and the future of Iran-West nuclear negotiations in Geneva.
Q: Whats your assessment of the recent developments in the course of Iran-U.S. relations? The meeting of the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and the US Secretary of State John Kerry in New York, the momentous phone call between President Rouhani and President Obama and the talks between the representatives of the two countries in Geneva all indicate a willingness on both sides to put the differences aside and move toward engaging in constructive talks and negotiations. In what ways can the resolution of Iran-US disputes contribute to regional peace and security?
A: We must put the recent developments in the context of how the West-Iran standoff took shape in the first place. Like the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Iran standoff was instigated by the neoconservatives of the Bush Administration based on their doctrine of maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests. The West used Irans nuclear program as a pretext, much like the allegation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, to demonize the Islamic Republic, exert pressure on the country and isolate it internationally, in order to pave the way for regime change. The nuclear crisis was thus manufactured by the US, UK and France, all forcefully prodded by Israel, and countries like Russia, China and India were pressured in the Governors Board of the International Atomic Agency (IAEA) to vote for reporting Irans file to the UN Security Council in 2006.
The West mobilized all its political, economic, and military resources as well as its propaganda machine to force Iran to surrender its nuclear rights. But Iran was able to stand firm against the western pressures despite crippling sanctions, thanks to a large majority of Iranian population who consistently supported their civilian nuclear program. High level of participation by the people in elections in Iran made it also crystal clear that western hopes for regime change in the country have no basis in the real world. On the other hand, Western interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria have all been total failures, only helping to further boost terrorism in the region. The real shock to the west came however with the historic defeat of the British Government in the House of Commons in August to obtain vote of support for a military strike against Syria, Irans ally in the axis of resistance against Israel.
Public opinion both in Europe and in the US have now turned strongly against new western interventions in the Middle East. As a result of these Western failures, the US and its EU allies had no choice but to reconsider their hawkish strategy against the Islamic Republic. They now need Irans support to help bring peace and stability to Syria and the broader region that they have turned into war zones and breeding ground for sectarian conflicts and terrorism.
Q: Since he came to power in June 14, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani clearly indicated that his government is ready to take confidence-building measures to demonstrate to the international community that Irans nuclear activities are solely aimed at peaceful purposes. Now, is the West equally ready and decisive to engage in talks with Iran on equal footing and to resolve the nuclear crisis in a timely manner?
A: Irrespective of domestic policies and conflicts under various administrations, the fact is that the Islamic Republic has always had a principled position regarding its nuclear program. Iran has consistently denounced nuclear weapons as well as all Weapons of Mass Destruction, in particular by a fatwa issued and reiterated several times by the Supreme Leader, and has always been prepared to go even beyond its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to show greater transparency if only the West recognizes its inalienable nuclear rights under this treaty. It was therefore a simple smooth transition for the new Iranian government to adopt a diplomatic offensive with a change of tone, which has positively impacted on the public opinion in the west and has thus put the US and its EU allies under pressure to resolve the standoff with Iran.
In contrast, the west has in the past eight years flouted international law and the UN charter to build an unprincipled alliance against Iran over its nuclear program. Since the original western motive had little to do with the nuclear issue, this alliance now consists of forces with completely different motivations that are irreconcilable. It is true that some western leaders do indeed have the desire to resolve the nuclear crisis with Iran but others still hold their ulterior reasons to put increasing pressure on Iran.
The West has therefore manufactured a dynamic which is now unfolding in a way that it no longer can control easily. The split in the P5+1 group (US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany) in the recent negotiations in Geneva was instigated unexpectedly by France, currently engaged in a lucrative arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which scuttled the deal between P5+1 and Iran while citing the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia. This reflects the fact that it would not be easy for the West to stay engaged and united to resolve the dispute.
Q: President Rouhanis main promise in the realm of foreign policy is constructive engagement with the world. He wants to reconstruct Irans foreign relations and allay the concerns existing over the countrys nuclear program. Have the United States and the EU countries shown any willingness to lift the economic sanctions and reciprocate President Rouhanis goodwill gestures?
A: Here again, Obama is a victim of his own Iran policies. It was his administration that imposed various rounds of sanctions against Iran by executive order, which have later been written into law in the US Congress. A substantial sanctions relief would now require congressional approval, which is beyond Obamas control.
The Iran oil sanctions are even illegal under the World Trade Organization (WTO) since they punish third parties that purchase Iranian oil. Since the US is a member of WTO, it also follows that these sanctions are ultimately illegal under US law. Yet, the Obama Administration foolishly formulated and adopted them without any qualms in relation to either international or US national law. Now these past actions would come to haunt the Administration since the Congress, under the relentless influence of the Israeli lobby, would most likely block the removal of Iran sanctions.
Given Israels strong opposition to a resolution of the West-Iran standoff and a settlement in the nuclear problem, the pro-Israel Congress would work hard to scupper any deals and we should expect this to be a huge obstacle in reaching a solution. It would take a momentous effort by the Obama Administration to pacify the Congress and be able in practice to offer Iran real sanctions relief.
Q: As you implied, it seems that the main impediment on the path of Iran-US talks is seemingly the inconsistency of the decision-making institutions in the United States. From one hand, the Obama administration calls for dialog and diplomacy with Iran while the other day the Congress puts forward a proposal for new sanctions against Iran. Even President Obama has several times contradicted his own calls for diplomacy with Iran by stating that the military option is on the table with regard to Irans nuclear program. What are these irregularities and inconsistencies for?
A: Given the role France played in sinking the deal in the latest round of talks in Geneva, it is now clear that the inconsistency is not just in the US, it is not just between Russia and China with the Western members of the P5+1, but also among the Western members of the P5+1 themselves. All these irregularities arise from the manufactured and politicized nature of the Iran standoff. If the nuclear problem had been addressed as a technical issue, the IAEA and Iran would have been able to resolve all the outstanding concerns as they did in 2007 when Dr Mohammad ElBaradei was the Director General of the agency.
The flawed political basis of the western block against Iran implies that different forces both in the US and within P5+1 pursue divergent interests of their own. With the waning of US influence in the world and in particular in the Middle East, these divergences become open conflicts. Obama Administrations crude contradictions in projecting optimism for a deal with Iran on the one hand and threatening to wage a military attack against the country at any time on the other hand stems from the need to placate both the pro-diplomacy and the pro-war factions in the US and in the Middle East. Clearly, such a contradictory attitude cannot last forever and eventually the Administration would have to speak in a consistent way if it desires a peaceful outcome of the nuclear dispute.
Q: Irans contemporary political history is filled with a deep sense of mistrust and lack of confidence in the United States, especially following the US sponsorship of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the 8-year war with Iran and its attempts to nip the Iranian revolution in the bud. Is there any way for the US to dissipate this mistrust among the Iranians and win their confidence to strengthen the bilateral ties and put aside the misunderstandings of the past?
A: The bitter memory of US imperial interference and interventions in Iran of course goes well beyond the past 35 years of Iranian revolution. In fact, the joint US-UK organized coup in 1953 to overthrow the nationalist government of Iran which had dared to take steps to nationalize Irans oil industry has a striking resemblance to the efforts of the Bush and the Obama Administrations and their EU allies in the past eight years to deprive Iran of its nuclear rights, which they have pursued by waging covert operations such as supporting terrorist organizations, organizing cyber warfare to damage Irans peaceful nuclear industry and imposing a criminal regime of economic sanctions against the Iranian people, which has killed hundreds if not thousands of cancer, diabetic and hemophilic patients.
Clearly, it would take a long time for the US to gain the trust of Iranian people and this can only be achieved by recognizing Irans rights for a civilian nuclear program including home enrichment of uranium for energy production. Recognition of Irans NPT rights must then be the basis of accepting the sovereignty and legitimacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and ceasing all overt and covert activities to destabilize Iran. Only when the US treats Iran with respect as a sovereign nation, the process of reconciliation and looking forward to mutual cooperation and collaboration in many areas of joint interests can begin.
Q: As Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif noted, throughout the past decade, Israel has been continuously warning that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon in less than 6 months. This 6-month deadline has never arrived, and Iran never produced any nuclear weapons. Dont the Israeli officials discredit and undermine themselves by issuing such baseless warnings?
A: As the only nuclear armed country in the region, Israel has for decades refused to open its nuclear sites to IAEA inspections and to join the NPT, and has violated scores of UN Security Council and UN General Assembly resolutions. Together with the US, Israel has long been considered by the overwhelming majority of the people in the Middle East as the greatest threat to peace and stability in the region.
This expansionist regime has been the main fabricator of the nuclear crisis and main the architect of the sanctions against Iran. Israels systematic and illegal threats of military attack against Iran in recent years under the pretext of Irans nuclear program, which is under 24/7 inspections of the IAEA, have made this occupying regime increasingly isolated in the international public opinion as well. Its comical rhetoric to promote phobia in the region against Iran, a country with no history of aggression for some quarter of a millennium, has now become ineffective and is regarded by the great majority of world nations as a pretext to divert attention from its illegal policies to expand settlements on occupied land and its persistent denial of Palestinian rights. Only the most reactionary absolute monarchies in the Persian Gulf have been persuaded by Israels anti-Iran propaganda and have entered into an unholy alliance with this regime.
Q: And finally, what do you think about the US-Israeli rift on Iran? The US government seemingly favors talks and diplomacy with Iran, while the neo-cons in the Congress and the Senate and the Israeli lobby are pushing for a war or at least intensification of the sanctions. Can the government of President Obama manage to overcome the pressures and pursue the path of negotiations and diplomacy?
A: The US and its EU allies, with their utterly failed interventions in the region, have now understood the need to accept Irans uranium enrichment for energy production which is Irans right under NPT and has large popular support in the country. However, Israel sees Irans independent technological progress as a challenge to its strategic domination and geopolitical position in the Middle East, which is why it demands more sanctions or war so that all uranium enrichment be suspended in Iran.
While the Israeli lobby is still quite strong in the US Congress, its influence in the American public has been steadily declining. The majority of American Jews for example are now critical of Israeli policies and this is an increasing trend. Western public opinion including that in the US is overwhelmingly in favor of a peaceful settlement with Iran, and in principle therefore the Obama Administration can challenge the strength of the Israeli lobby in the US in order to make a nuclear deal if it is prepared to acknowledge Irans nuclear rights and resort to the American public to win support for a settlement of the dispute with Iran.
In October, Obama was able to take such a course and outflank the Republican dominated House over the issue of the interim authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2014. If the Administration has the desire and the determination, this can also be done in relation to Irans nuclear dispute.
By Fars News Agency
The Iran Project is not responsible for the content of quoted articles.
