Iran Proliferation Saga: A Sanction For Your Thoughts?

And enter the opposition party leader Moussavi from Iran, to shed his feelings on the developing conversation about Iran’s peaceful/non-peaceful nuclear facility that has just been discovered.

An article detailing some of his comments can be accessed here.

I will say that he has raised some interesting things to consider.

Nuclear Proliferation in Iran- it looks like the idea of nuclear something in Iran is here to stay.  That is because Moussavi and other leaders have expressed that they would continue the program to search for nuclear capabilities.  In reading a comment on one of my posts following this situation the other day, a reader noted that you still had to enrich and develop nuclear capabilities in the same fashion to have a peaceful or non-peaceful program.  So a thought is, if this was not Ahmadinejad that the West was dealing with, would it be a different case?  Would their be more leniency and understanding of the explanations being offered as to why this plant actually exists?  This could be a bias on the West’s part that needs to be checked at the door until more concrete foundations for this sentiment can be found.  Could be. 

The commenter also pointed out that countries such as India, Pakistan, and Israel have nuclear arsenals and are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  I think that this is actually the reason why Iran is being pressed so hard on its capabilities – they apparently are signatories that look to be less than cooperative from the West’s standards.  Now what the reasoning is behind not putting pressure on Israel, India, and Pakistan to refrain from nuclear proliferation is beyond me (Lord knows we put the pressure on North Korea, who are also non-signatories).  As a part of international norms and jus cogens, it seems that nonproliferation is the way to go, whether a signatory or not.  Double standards?  I will let your opinions form.  But all that is to be said is that the leadership and potential leadership for the future in Iran is intent on nuclear power.  So accepting that, how can the West encourage and present every opportunity for open communication and adherence to the NPT, so that there is no question when Iran is being less than cooperative?  That should be the focus.

Sanctions - Shameless plug again.  An analysis I co-authored with 4 astute individuals focused on the use of sanctions to reduce human rights violations in Burma (Myanmar) and whether it was effective.  During our research, we began to discover that sanctions that were not targeted were usually lost on the main people they were trying to affect.  In particular economic sanctions ended up hurting the main population, while the government was shielded from its effects, and were hardly moved from the suffering of the people.  Moussavi I think has a valid point here as well.  We know that Iran needs some consequence to accompany non-cooperative actions, but unless the sanctions are targeted at the government itself, then the people may have to suffer until Ahmadinejad is moved by the suffering of his people.  I think this is almost the hidden weakness of sanctions as a foreign policy tool – because it assumes that the government in place is altruistic enough to not stand by while its people reap the hardships brought on by a sanction.  If it is personal for the leader, then the only people the West would affect is the citizens of that nation, potentially shifting public opinion against their efforts.  This could be a set back in the case of Iran I am sure.

There is enough history between Western countries, Iran, Russia, and China to make this a very complicated situation – complicated to the point where just “checking presumptions at the door” are easier said than done.  But it is like looking at a chef getting out butter, flour, milk, eggs, baking powder, and a pan, and you assume that they are about to bake a cake, when the chef is insisting he is going to make cupcakes.  Both sides are approaching the situation with enough information to be right if you look at it objectively.  The only thing lacking is known intentions – and that is not something you can determine unless you are Ms. Cleo or Dionne Warwick.  Or if you are the countries’ leaders themselves. 

It is going to come down to the West accepting that Iran is just wanting cupcakes, or assuming that its only a matter of time before we see a cake, and they need to plan today for the inevitability of tomorrow.

Contributor, Young Writer’s Block
Contributor, The Carmon Report

Popularity: -0% [?]