Shirin Ebadi, a human rights advocate, was awarded the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize and Muhammad Sahimi is a professor of chemical engineering at USC. Writing in the LA Times, they articulate the Western challenge, and responsibility, for Iran's nuclear program:
"The U.S. will not solve the nuclear problem by threatening military strikes or by dragging Iran before the U.N. Security Council. Although a vast majority of Iranians despise the country's hard-liners and wish for their downfall, they also support its nuclear program because it has become a source of pride for an old nation with a glorious history.
"A military attack would only inflame nationalist sentiments. Iran is not Iraq. Given Iranians' fierce nationalism and the Shiites' tradition of martyrdom, any military move would provoke a response that would engulf the entire region, resulting in countless deaths and a ruined economy not only for the region but for the world.
" Iran is at least six to 10 years away from a nuclear bomb, by most estimates. The crisis is not even a crisis. There is ample time for political reform before Iran ever develops the bomb. Meanwhile, the West should permit Iran a limited uranium enrichment program (as allowed under the non-proliferation treaty) under strict safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency - but only when Tehran undertakes meaningful reforms, including freeing political prisoners and holding free and fair elections.
"Lastly, the U.S. and Iran should enter direct negotiations. It is simply absurd for the U.S. and the most important nation in the Middle East not to communicate directly. The Bush administration should not be seduced by exile groups with no support in Iran. Developing democracy is an internal affair.
"Democracy, in the end, will provide the ultimate safeguard against nuclear disaster, because a truly democratic Iran, backed by a majority of Iranians, would feel secure enough not to pursue dangerous military adventures."
Such words are likely to fall on deaf ears in some circles, but common sense must prevail.
"The U.S. will not solve the nuclear problem by threatening military strikes or by dragging Iran before the U.N. Security Council. Although a vast majority of Iranians despise the country's hard-liners and wish for their downfall, they also support its nuclear program because it has become a source of pride for an old nation with a glorious history.
"A military attack would only inflame nationalist sentiments. Iran is not Iraq. Given Iranians' fierce nationalism and the Shiites' tradition of martyrdom, any military move would provoke a response that would engulf the entire region, resulting in countless deaths and a ruined economy not only for the region but for the world.
" Iran is at least six to 10 years away from a nuclear bomb, by most estimates. The crisis is not even a crisis. There is ample time for political reform before Iran ever develops the bomb. Meanwhile, the West should permit Iran a limited uranium enrichment program (as allowed under the non-proliferation treaty) under strict safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency - but only when Tehran undertakes meaningful reforms, including freeing political prisoners and holding free and fair elections.
"Lastly, the U.S. and Iran should enter direct negotiations. It is simply absurd for the U.S. and the most important nation in the Middle East not to communicate directly. The Bush administration should not be seduced by exile groups with no support in Iran. Developing democracy is an internal affair.
"Democracy, in the end, will provide the ultimate safeguard against nuclear disaster, because a truly democratic Iran, backed by a majority of Iranians, would feel secure enough not to pursue dangerous military adventures."
Such words are likely to fall on deaf ears in some circles, but common sense must prevail.
5 Comments:
Of course we should accept these comments beyond what we know to be true. Iran has an active system of proxy terrorism. Iran has been dishonest about its nuclear ambitions and program. Iran has openly declared a desire to eradicate its neighbour.
At this stage of the game, one would wonder who is making the estimates of 6-10 years for a nuclear bomb? Such flipant and reckless comments are likely to fall on deaf ears of extreme leftists who bend over forwards to accomodate Islamic facists.
Crisis? What crisis?
It is not surprising that _01 excuses the entire UN alarms about Iran with a quote from a leading Nazi.
Adam your series of non sequiter statements make a cogent discussion impossible.
addamo_01 when you engage in emotional polemics, your syntax, cogency and spelling all deteriorate. You clearly have strong views, but its a pity that you are so ill tempered and intolerant.
I have no interest in your views, but consider it amusing that you are at such odds with all of the leaders and governments of the free world and instead show a bizzare allegiance to a country that has no freedom of speech, no freedom of association and is outrightly intolerant of Jews, gays, its neighbours, other Muslims and the free world.
And perhaps, given that you seem to be an expert on everything and are quite ready to denigrate others in their comments, you could share with us how you arrived at your unshakable world-view. Did someone not tell you that Green Left Weekly is good to start up a barbeque but about nothing else. You should find something else to read whilst you are looking for work.
"In spite of al the evils you are dredging up, this is no reason to attack a country and start war that could escalate to horrific proportions."
At last you have used the right word: evil. Iran is an evil society and I am pleased you can agree. And this is the very centre of the problem: nuclear weapons in the hands of an evil empire should never be tolerated.
I am still waiting for you to cite the credible people (other than yourself of course) that have put Iran's nuclear weapon production at 6-10 years.
Post a Comment
<< Home