Connect with us

Articles

The Politics of Iran’s Nuclear programme

Published

on

7034_1098347751295_1604671109_30225220_3721302_nIran not for the first time is on the receiving end of a barrage of criticism for not being transparent in its nuclear programme. Ever since Barack Obama become US president, Iran has been told to declare all its nuclear sites and halt enrichment activity. Obama under Israeli pressure has reiterated that it will impose crippling sanctions on the Gas rich state by the beginning of October 2008 if it did not comply.

The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) was carved out in 1968 and Iran became a signatory in 1970. It is well known that Iran under the Shah had begun its nuclear activity in collaboration with French and German companies.

Khomeini halted Iran’s nuclear activity in 1979, whilst Rafsanjani, when he came to power resumed Iran’s nuclear programme in 1995. The nuclear programme continued during the reformist period (1997-2005) under Khatami. It was in 2003, after the occupation of Iraq that a number of exiled Iranian’s made public that Iran was pursuing a secret and unsafe nuclear programme and was hiding the programme from the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Based on this, the chief of IAEA, Mohammed el Baradai prepared a report and presented it to the IAEA. This is when the Iranian Nuclear Crisis gained momentum.

During the rule of Khatami in 2003 an ‘additional protocol’ was signed which allowed, IAEA inspectors to carry out checks without notice as Iran could be hiding a number of installations during planned and scheduled inspections.

Iran ceased Uranium enrichment for the sake of negotiations, however the Troika’ of Germany, France and Britain refused to guarantee Iran’s right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran therefore resumed its uranium enrichment programme.

The US, since this crisis began has done everything it can to sabotage a possible solution. Whilst the European ‘Troika’ are engaged in negotiations with Iran to find a solution to the problem, the US has constantly delayed a possible solution. Whenever the negotiations reached a point of near-solution, US officials would issue a statement with an implied warning that the US had all options open to it – even after the Troika made progress on a solution.

For instance in April 2007, Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief envoy, two days after his meeting with Larijani on 25th April 2007, called upon Washington to open all channels of communication with Tehran including the nuclear issue and added that the Iranians, including their higher authorities are open to such a dialogue. Solana had in his talks with Larijani proposed that both parties abandon their positions in favor of a mid-way solution in good faith. But Washington backed off insisting that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment as a pre-condition for any direct dialogue. Iran’s nuclear enrichment was only at 5% which is well below the weaponisation limit. A nuclear warhead needs an enrichment of 95%.

This shows that the US has no intention of solving this conflict and it has actually ensured no solution is ever reached.

The Bush regime in its first term was dominated by neoconservatives who held the opinion that the best way to control the people of the Middle East was through the promotion of democracy through forcible regime change. This model failed soon after the invasion of Iraq, and set in motion a vigorous policy debate amongst American policy makers. The Bush administration in its second term made some adjustments and abandoned this approach. Nevertheless, it was unable change its rhetoric towards Iran because the bellicose language helped the US aggressively push its missile shield programme in face of stiff Russian opposition. Additionally, it enabled the US to enter into new security pacts with the frightened gulf countries. The close ties between the Jewish lobby and Bush administration prevented it from removing the military option off the table-even though the probability of war between US and Iran had greatly diminished.

Despite the continuous imposition of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme, the West is nowhere close to halting its enrichment programme. The US has exploited the five year old negotiations between the EU-3 and Iran to coax the Europeans into a protracted discussion over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Furthermore, America has added fuel to the fire through the bravado of the neoconservatives and doggedness of Ahmadinejad, which has resulted in an atmosphere of war and created perpetual tensions in the region. By doing so, America has gained a strategic advantage by persuading the Gulf Arab countries to acquire nuclear energy, by nudging the Israelis into a security pact and by permitting Iran to divert its civilian programme to build atomic bombs. In December 2008 the US State Department announced that the US was close to concluding a nuclear cooperation agreement with the United Arab Emirates. The so-called 1-2-3 agreement would be similar to the nuclear cooperation accord the United States reached with India in 2005. It would allow the United States to sell nuclear fuel, equipment and technology to the UAE. Similar agreements were also being pursued with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. In summary, America is working towards the nuclearization of the Middle East.

Aside form all the rhetoric, the US and Iran have cooperated on a number of issues which has protected American interests in the region These include supporting Hamas and Hezbollah in the Levant, strengthening the Iraqi government through the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and stabilising Afghanistan. Official contact has gradually grown since the end of the Bush term. America even snubbed Israeli advances to attack Iran. America played down Israel’s show of air power over the Mediterranean in November 2008 and has refused to sell the powerful GBU-29 bunker-busters bombs.

When Iran sits down on October 1st 2009 to negotiate, Obama is in a very weak position. Since hishoneymoon came to an end, various factions have pushed Obama into a corner that will only exasperate Obama’s options. Iran’s declaration of a second enrichment site only complicates matters as it shows an intelligence failure and intelligence challenge faced by Israel and the US in drawing up military contingencies. Until US intelligence is able to ascertain the number of nuclear sites it becomes impossible to halt Iran’s nuclear programme. Obama is finding the healthcare reform bill being challenged domestically and Israeli lobby, pushing for military action if nothing substantial comes out of the October 1st talks. Obama will need to achieve something substantial to tackle domestic opposition.

With regards the threat of crippling sanctions, no sanctions regime is water tight. The real vulnerability in the sanctions comes from Russia. Iran has become a major pressure point in Russia’s ongoing geopolitical tussle with the United States, and Moscow has signalled in a number of ways that it isn’t going to be shy about using its leverage with Tehran to turn the screws on Washington. Moscow has a list of core demands that revolve around the basic concept of the West respecting Russian influence in its former Soviet periphery. As long as the United States continues to rebuff these demands and write off Russia as a weak power, the Russians not only can refuse to participate in sanctions but they can also blow the entire sanctions regime apart. The more bogged down the United States is in the Islamic world, the more Russia weakens the US.

The Obama administration is pressing ahead with normalising US relations with Iran as both nations have virtually the same interests in the region. The pace of the normalisation process will be slow and America will employ a series of carrots and sticks to mould the Iranian regime to implement its policies and protect US interests.

The Middle East is moving from being a uni-polar region where the US enjoyed uncontested hegemony to a multi-polar region with both China and Russia now moving in the region. The introduction of NATO is ominous sign in that America wants to safeguard the hydrocarbons of the Middle East from Russia and China. Iran will serve as America’s lynchpin in providing energy security and both the US and Russia are competing over influence in Iran. The spread of nuclear technology in the Middle East under US auspices signals that from a geo-strategic perspective, America is looking to completely surround Russia and China with nuclear armed states stretching from Eastern Europe to the Asian pacific.

The debate about Iran being independent and potentially Islamic or even a Shi’ah state, Iran is nothing other then pragmatic without any consistent basis from where it derives it’s polices. Iran saved Iraq from becoming America’s Vietnam and whilst traditionally the reformists reached out to the West both the conservatives and the reformists are in bed with the US. The Muslims of the region and beyond have been manipulated before and served as US pawns to bring down the Soviet Union. Today, Obama and some of his advisors believe that this feat can be repeated against Russia and China. The Muslim Ummah must learn from its past experience and turn the tables on these major powers by re-establishing the Khilafah which will make these powers fight each other and raise high the Islamic banner over their destruction…inshallah.

I

ran not for the first time is on the receiving end of a barrage of criticism for not being transparent in its nuclear programme. Ever since Barack Obama become US president, Iran has been told to declare all its nuclear sites and halt enrichment activity. Obama under Israeli pressure has reiterated that it will impose crippling sanctions on the Gas rich state by the beginning of October 2008 if it did not comply.

The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) was carved out in 1968 and Iran became a signatory in 1970. It is well known that Iran under the Shah had begun its nuclear activity in collaboration with French and German companies.

Khomeini halted Iran’s nuclear activity in 1979, whilst Rafsanjani, when he came to power resumed Iran’s nuclear programme in 1995. The nuclear programme continued during the reformist period (1997-2005) under Khatami. It was in 2003, after the occupation of Iraq that a number of exiled Iranian’s made public that Iran was pursuing a secret and unsafe nuclear programme and was hiding the programme from the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Based on this, the chief of IAEA, Mohammed el Baradai prepared a report and presented it to the IAEA. This is when the Iranian Nuclear Crisis gained momentum.

During the rule of Khatami in 2003 an ‘additional protocol’ was signed which allowed, IAEA inspectors to carry out checks without notice as Iran could be hiding a number of installations during planned and scheduled inspections.

Iran ceased Uranium enrichment for the sake of negotiations, however the Troika’ of Germany, France and Britain refused to guarantee Iran’s right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran therefore resumed its uranium enrichment programme.

The US, since this crisis began has done everything it can to sabotage a possible solution. Whilst the European ‘Troika’ are engaged in negotiations with Iran to find a solution to the problem, the US has constantly delayed a possible solution. Whenever the negotiations reached a point of near-solution, US officials would issue a statement with an implied warning that the US had all options open to it – even after the Troika made progress on a solution.

For instance in April 2007, Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief envoy, two days after his meeting with Larijani on 25th April 2007, called upon Washington to open all channels of communication with Tehran including the nuclear issue and added that the Iranians, including their higher authorities are open to such a dialogue. Solana had in his talks with Larijani proposed that both parties abandon their positions in favor of a mid-way solution in good faith. But Washington backed off insisting that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment as a pre-condition for any direct dialogue. Iran’s nuclear enrichment was only at 5% which is well below the weaponisation limit. A nuclear warhead needs an enrichment of 95%.

This shows that the US has no intention of solving this conflict and it has actually ensured no solution is ever reached.

The Bush regime in its first term was dominated by neoconservatives who held the opinion that the best way to control the people of the Middle East was through the promotion of democracy through forcible regime change. This model failed soon after the invasion of Iraq, and set in motion a vigorous policy debate amongst American policy makers. The Bush administration in its second term made some adjustments and abandoned this approach. Nevertheless, it was unable change its rhetoric towards Iran because the bellicose language helped the US aggressively push its missile shield programme in face of stiff Russian opposition. Additionally, it enabled the US to enter into new security pacts with the frightened gulf countries. The close ties between the Jewish lobby and Bush administration prevented it from removing the military option off the table-even though the probability of war between US and Iran had greatly diminished.

Despite the continuous imposition of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme, the West is nowhere close to halting its enrichment programme. The US has exploited the five year old negotiations between the EU-3 and Iran to coax the Europeans into a protracted discussion over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Furthermore, America has added fuel to the fire through the bravado of the neoconservatives and doggedness of Ahmadinejad, which has resulted in an atmosphere of war and created perpetual tensions in the region. By doing so, America has gained a strategic advantage by persuading the Gulf Arab countries to acquire nuclear energy, by nudging the Israelis into a security pact and by permitting Iran to divert its civilian programme to build atomic bombs. In December 2008 the US State Department announced that the US was close to concluding a nuclear cooperation agreement with the United Arab Emirates. The so-called 1-2-3 agreement would be similar to the nuclear cooperation accord the United States reached with India in 2005. It would allow the United States to sell nuclear fuel, equipment and technology to the UAE. Similar agreements were also being pursued with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. In summary, America is working towards the nuclearization of the Middle East.

Aside form all the rhetoric, the US and Iran have cooperated on a number of issues which has protected American interests in the region These include supporting Hamas and Hezbollah in the Levant, strengthening the Iraqi government through the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and stabilising Afghanistan. Official contact has gradually grown since the end of the Bush term. America even snubbed Israeli advances to attack Iran. America played down Israel’s show of air power over the Mediterranean in November 2008 and has refused to sell the powerful GBU-29 bunker-busters bombs.

When Iran sits down on October 1st 2009 to negotiate, Obama is in a very weak position. Since hishoneymoon came to an end, various factions have pushed Obama into a corner that will only exasperate Obama’s options. Iran’s declaration of a second enrichment site only complicates matters as it shows an intelligence failure and intelligence challenge faced by Israel and the US in drawing up military contingencies. Until US intelligence is able to ascertain the number of nuclear sites it becomes impossible to halt Iran’s nuclear programme. Obama is finding the healthcare reform bill being challenged domestically and Israeli lobby, pushing for military action if nothing substantial comes out of the October 1st talks. Obama will need to achieve something substantial to tackle domestic opposition.

With regards the threat of crippling sanctions, no sanctions regime is water tight. The real vulnerability in the sanctions comes from Russia. Iran has become a major pressure point in Russia’s ongoing geopolitical tussle with the United States, and Moscow has signalled in a number of ways that it isn’t going to be shy about using its leverage with Tehran to turn the screws on Washington. Moscow has a list of core demands that revolve around the basic concept of the West respecting Russian influence in its former Soviet periphery. As long as the United States continues to rebuff these demands and write off Russia as a weak power, the Russians not only can refuse to participate in sanctions but they can also blow the entire sanctions regime apart. The more bogged down the United States is in the Islamic world, the more Russia weakens the US.

The Obama administration is pressing ahead with normalising US relations with Iran as both nations have virtually the same interests in the region. The pace of the normalisation process will be slow and America will employ a series of carrots and sticks to mould the Iranian regime to implement its policies and protect US interests.

The Middle East is moving from being a uni-polar region where the US enjoyed uncontested hegemony to a multi-polar region with both China and Russia now moving in the region. The introduction of NATO is ominous sign in that America wants to safeguard the hydrocarbons of the Middle East from Russia and China. Iran will serve as America’s lynchpin in providing energy security and both the US and Russia are competing over influence in Iran. The spread of nuclear technology in the Middle East under US auspices signals that from a geo-strategic perspective, America is looking to completely surround Russia and China with nuclear armed states stretching from Eastern Europe to the Asian pacific.

The debate about Iran being independent and potentially Islamic or even a Shi’ah state, Iran is nothing other then pragmatic without any consistent basis from where it derives it’s polices. Iran saved Iraq from becoming America’s Vietnam and whilst traditionally the reformists reached out to the West both the conservatives and the reformists are in bed with the US. The Muslims of the region and beyond have been manipulated before and served as US pawns to bring down the Soviet Union. Today, Obama and some of his advisors believe that this feat can be repeated against Russia and China. The Muslim Ummah must learn from its past experience and turn the tables on these major powers by re-establishing the Khilafah which will make these powers fight each other and raise high the Islamic banner over their destruction…inshallah.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Articles

The Real Outcome of the Recent Pak-US Official Visits

Published

on

Obama & Zardari

US vice President, Joseph Biden recent visit to Pakistan was a matter of great concern for the entire nation, media and our US-led government, which is strongly believed to be acting like a puppet in US hands after its failure to resolve the issue of military insurgency and continuous drone attacks in the tribal areas of Pakistan. It was a shrewd and tactful move on the part of the USA as the trust deficit between Pak-US relations continues to increase after the Indo-US nuclear deal, Obama’s visit to India and his endorsing India to become a permanent member of Security Council. Infact all these policies point directly towards its deep-rooted strategic interests and inclination towards India. The simple logic or reason behind all this is America’s fear of China and security threat from Pakistan. In the upcoming years it is not likely to be Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s Pakistan who can possibly become a safe haven for the terrorists and its previous Pro Taliban policy still haunts the Americans. USA alleges Pakistan’s ISI being supportive to these extremist elements and considers its nuclear arsenals being unsafe. Out of this fear, Biden has announced in his few days back visit to Afghanistan that USA forces would continue to stay and expected gradual withdrawal, starting this summer of US troops, can be postponed if Afghanistan wants, in order to prevent civil war and to fully eliminate the terrorists from its land.

America’s security depends greatly on Pakistan so it is bound to establish good ties with Pakistan and this surprise visit was another goodwill gesture out of courtesy and more likely out of its own self interest. In his visit, Joe Biden tried to clarify the misconceptions that prevail in Pakistan about US intentions and actions. He appreciated Pakistan’s fight against terrorism and reiterated US support to democracy in Pakistan and its stability. Biden assured that the new US administration would support Pakistan’s efforts to counter terrorism, religious radicalism and to meet its developmental needs and capacity building. He also expressed his condolence over assassination of Governor Salman Taseer. He assured Pakistan that no US boot will tread on Pakistani soil and there will be no violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,”

Our President Asif Ali Zardari recently also visited USA to attend the memorial services of Pak-Afghan envoy Richard Holbrook. There was no ceremonial welcome, no state banquet, and no joint presser, not even an opening statement on his arrival. No one is really quite sure what Zardari had hoped to accomplish, by meeting the US President and the state secretary Hillary Clinton as the two countries are battling an enormous trust deficit despite public protestations of cooperation in combating terrorism. The two leaders renewed pledges of cooperation over the aspects of the US-Pakistan strategic partnership, including mutual commitment to economic reform, support for good governance, democracy and joint efforts against terrorism. The discussion focused on shared efforts to fight terrorism, resolve the issue of blasphemy law and to promote regional stability, specifically on the importance of cooperating towards a peaceful and stable outcome in Afghanistan. However, Washington is not ready to pay any heed over the Kashmir issue and the real outcome of these two visits seems quite bleak for Pakistan, giving us neither new hopes for betterment nor any positive prospects for the future.

The years of US policies toward Pakistan based on financial allurements and conventional weaponry have done little to induce any change. Despite all these assurances, Pakistani nation is now skeptical of US motives having bad experiences in the past like drone strikes on Pakistani border areas, failure of Kerry Lugar bill and inadequate US material and financial aid for the war on terror and in crucial times of floods. These two visits are another deceptive picture by USA to allure Pakistan towards itself, after foreseeing Pakistan’s growing diplomatic and economic cooperation with China in December. No matter how much USA assures Pakistan of its staunch support, the atmosphere of misperceptions and doubts continue to hail around the country and America can never win the hearts and minds of Pakistani people through its fake assurances, callous policies and political/ military tactics as the two sides have a long way to go to overcome their significant differences. As it is well said that assurance cannot be bought but achieved only through mutual trust, cooperation and it requires time and experience.

AYMEN IJAZ
ISLAMABAD

Continue Reading

Pakistan

THE SILENT MAJORITY

Published

on

by Arslan Khalid

A couple of days ago Pakistan saw The Governor of its largest province murdered in broad daylight by his own security personal. The murderer has claimed it to be in reaction to governors’ statements against blasphemy law. Irrespective of the political turmoil it may have created, the society is divided into two groups over this issue. 5% people claiming it to be a justified act while 5% considers governor as a martyr .

Silent Majority

Now where does majority 90% stand on this issue? Well they are once again busy doing their usual thing which is “to keep silent”.
Maulana Roomi once said that Nations die when they fail to differentiate between the right and wrong .It would have been very convenient to accept that our nation had died many years ago but the fact is that this silent majority of our nation has still got the ability to differentiate between right and wrong only if they can come out of their self created prison .Their major concern is just to pass there solitary lives in captivity without being disturbed. They have become immune to oppression and injustice. They have allowed a minority to rule over them and to represent them as a nation whether this minority be extremists or liberal fascists.
In Islam we are blessed with an eternal gift. A blessing that no other religion is offering which is a clear guideline to pass our lives. The whole message of Almighty is there in Quran and then elaborated clearly by Hadiths and the Holy life of The Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him).Unlike other religions where u follow a church or a synagogue to understand it, we Muslims can lead good,pious lives by studying Quran and Hadiths ourselves. So role of a Molvi becomes very well defined . His job should just be spreading the message of namaz,zakat and basic principles of Islam. If some Mullah tries to spread the message against the spirit of Islam which is peace why cant the majority sitting in mosque take a stand and ask him afterwards that he shouldn’t indulge himself in that domain. The little contribution on our part can save somebody from getting wrong meaning of Islam by that Mullah. However as followers, people need to understand that Islam is a religion and not a fashion that needs change with time. There is no radical or moderate Islam .The radicalization is a whole different phenomenon and has more to do with political and social issues than religious ones.
It will take long to explain causes for the radicalization and intolerance that we witness in our society so I would rather stick to my topic about the silent people out there who sometimes gather courage and decides to speak up but limit their voice to facebook or twitter only. alas!! Almost all my friends living abroad on watching governors’ murder news, updated their status on face book showing immense disappointment and remorse. Unfortunately none of them ever update their status when everyday drone attacks are killing innocent people in our tribal region .In an estimate 42% people who died in last yrs drone attack were just a collateral damage and the missile never differentiated between a child, a woman or a 70 yr old man. Last month people affected by drones from South and North Waziristan protested in Islamabad. Prominent human rights associations that claim to be champions of human rights in Pakistan and get dollars for their NGOs in return for their services never turned up for them. Nobody even bothered that a 8 year old child waiting for mercy after having lost his parents in drone attack is an ideal target to get exploited by terrorists.
Even American and British people adopted Iraqi orphans after Iraq war but our silent class has gone so selfish that they couldn’t help one of their own. Living their lives in fear and avoiding trouble, not foreseeing that few yrs from now this very child’s activity can give them some irreplaceable loss.
We always blame an individual for some act but never bothered that this was bound to happen. Give me one explanation why should we only blame an individual and never considered our silence responsible for the act. Why do we expect peace when we are so far from the concept of Islam? Why do we expect logical decisions from people when there is no effort of educating people on real issues? How can we expect a better future for us when we haven’t learnt anything from history? Why do we even think of being sovereign when we know we are being ruled by corrupt puppets of super powers and do nothing to remove them? We want people to be keep deep sentiments for the country but want to restrain their sentiments when somebody shows mala fide intentions towards the religion? How can we expect a great Muslim scholar to come out of some madarasa when we ourselves have generalized all madarasas as terrorist training centers and have labeled all students there as terrorists? Why do we hope for some genuine National heroes when we are busy making disputed people of past as heroes and martyrs? Why do people mention about Rule of Law and States authority to implement some law when the people running the state are the biggest thugs and frauds? why do we even mention about making better laws when the law makers are themselves the biggest law breakers? How can we wish for a revolution that can change the fate of this nation but aren’t willing to sacrifice for it? Aren’t these questions enough to tell that where we demand others to be clear in their heads we ourselves are confused? Last but not least why am I expecting answers to these questions when I know that these questions were addressed to ‘The Silent Majority’ of this nation which hopefully will one day wake up from the deep slumber they are presently in.

Continue Reading

Articles

Your Opinion Poll Regarding Salman Taseer’s Killing [VOTE]

Published

on

By

”]Salman Taseer killed by his own security guard “Mumtaz Qadri” in reaction to Taseer’s statement terming the blasphemy law as a black law.  He fired 27 bullets into Salman Taseer’s body. 500 religious Scholars alone from Karachi urged Muslims to boycott the funeral ceremony.

The statement which has been endorsed by senior Barelvi leaders such as Professor Saeed Shah Kazmi, Allama Syed Riaz Hussain Shah, Syed Shah Turabul Haq Qadri and Hajji Mohammad Tayyab calls the assassin Mumtaz Hussain Qadri ‘Ashiqe Rasool Ghaziye Mulk (Lover of the Prophet, Commander of the Country)’.

“We pay rich tributes and salute the bravery, valour and faith of Mumtaz Qadri,” the statement said, adding that the ministers, politicians, ‘so-called’ intellectuals and anchor persons should learn lessons from the governor’s death. The scholars said that those who insult the Holy Prophet (pbuh), even if they did not intend to, were liable for death.

Hajji Mohammad Tayyab, who is also the secretary general of the Sunni Ittehad Council, told The Express Tribune that scholars had “repeatedly urged the president, prime minister and Governor Taseer himself that if their knowledge about the blasphemy law are limited, they should consult them and avoid debating over the issue as it would inflame the people and then anything could happen.”

Shah Turabul Haq Qadri’s son Siraj, also a senior member of the JASP, endorsed the statement and said it was now binding on every Muslim.

Jamiat Ulemae Pakistan (JUP) central executive committee member Maulana Shabbir went as far as saying that in his opinion Salmaan Taseer was ‘Wajubul Qatil’ (must be killed according to divine law). “He had called the divine law of God, a black law and tried to protect a condemned blasphemer,” he said.

POLL


Mumtaz Qadri have done the Right action or Wrong ?


[poll id=”5″]

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2021 Jagonews.