Iran has full right to pursue full nuclear development
Iran, Analysis, 1/28/2006

Looking at the current controversy created over Iran by those who oppose Iran developing a civil nuclear energy program, one has to look at the facts to see thru all the fog that is spread.

Iran as a member of the nuclear non proliferation treaty has full right to develop a complete civil nuclear program. This includes the ability to fully produce enriched Uranium for itself on its own soil without ever having to be dependent on another country, to run its nuclear reactors, or any type of civil program it chooses to develop that benefits its industry and economy.

The nuclear agency responsible for overseeing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty obligation is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This organization is more of an impotent political entity more than a technical group with any authority.

The IAEA has its cameras at the Iranian nuclear facilities to observe every move, and IAEA inspectors have full access to these facilities. I say the IAEA is a political entity because it has shown itself to not be driven by technical matters, but by the political agendas of the big powers. This was clearly proven prior to the war against Iraq. The agency was sent to Iraq to investigate claims that Iraq was developing and had developed mass destruction weapons and including nuclear programs. This agency, showed how impotent it was. It could not find any Iraqi violations, yet, it kept repeating the mantra of those who wanted to attack Iraq.

The IAEA kept saying: we cannot prove that Iraq does not have nuclear weapons and nuclear programs.

In logic, they call this kind of argument "trying to prove a negative". This is like someone accusing you that you beat your wife, and you have to prove that you don't. No matter what you do, they always tell you, well, may be you do it at night, when the world is asleep. You just cannot prove a negative statement of this sort. This is the cowardice and impotence that the agency showed. Yet, the US had the audacity to come in front of the UN Security Council, and impress upon its members some pictures of a truck, that could have been a garbage truck, to declare to the world, that the US has evidence of Iraq's mass destruction weapons, and biological laboratories. It is hard to see the worth of the UN Security Council and its members when they can demonstrate that quality of independence, when they can time and time again produce these kinds of quality argumentation and decisions.

But for some people, logic is of little use, and they will always argue intent, saying that: in their hearts, the Iraqis wanted to build a nuclear weapon. Well, that may have been nice to have. Because if they had it, it would have come in handy, and they would have prevented from being inflicted on them a war.

Now comes Iran. And they want to prevent Iran from legal rights it has. Why, because the US, Israel, and others say Iran may decide to one day develop nuclear weapons if it develops a full civil nuclear capabilities. That is not an argument to prevent people from their rights. Just because a gun is dangerous or a knife can be dangerous, we don't go around taking these items from people's hands, as long as they are legal.

But let us even assume that Iran flat out comes out and says: yes, we want nuclear weapons. What would be wrong with that? This sounds like something very logical and positive to do. Why? If Iran had nuclear weapons, it would not be bullied as it is now by the US, Israel and the others. If I were being threatened, the very first thing I would want is a large number of these nuclear weapons. They do very well to quite down the bullies. It sure worked for North Korea.

Another advantage to wanting nuclear weapons is that they can significantly cut down on the military budget of a country. Iran with five nuclear weapons would stop feeling a need to spend billions of dollars buying weapons for its defense. Because no one would dare attack Iran.

But that would not suit the big powers too well for small countries to have nuclear weapons. The military industry is way too big and too profitable for them. They want these countries to always be in need to buy their weapons. After all, sales of weapons to the Middle East countries is a huge commercial business for the big powers. Talk just months ago were about Saudi Arabia spending some 24 billion dollars to update its military. They scare Saudi Arabia and the gulf states with Iran, and they scare Iran with Iraq, and they use Israel to scare everyone else, and in the process keep them spending their money on guns instead of schools and butter and industry.

So what is wrong with nuclear weapons? The big powers have them and love them and flaunt them, and threaten others with them. And they keep developing them, and advancing them. Surely, these countries are not that dumm. They must see great value to these weapons to defend their countries. Then why not the little guys? Why not protect the little guy in a world where the law of the jungle is king, where a big country can act as the accuser, judge and prosecutor?

The US ambassador this week threatened India to vote with it against Iran, or else. How ironic. India, not long ago was itself being prevented from seeking nuclear weapons by the US. The US imposed sanctions on it and Pakistan. But both countries defied the sanctions and continued developing nuclear capabilities. Neither India nor Pakistan are members of the nuclear proliferation treaty. The US removed its sanctions of India, and now furthermore, wants to sell India nuclear technology. Of course the US still has the same old motives, of wanting India to not be a true super power with nuclear weapons and is seeking to weaken India's nuclear military program. None-the-less, the lesson is clear: in a dog-eat-dog world that we live in, nuclear power is good for you, and it gains you real respect and real deterrence capability, and can have great economic value. And when you have them, you will find the big power become much nicer to you to.

Ask North Korea, and how much the tone of the US changed from Axis of Evil, country, to "let us negotiate" country, when North Korea declared that it has nuclear weapons. No more threat to North Korea of "we keep all options open."

China, like India, who is being courted by the US to vote against Iran, clearly played the North Korea card extremely well to its advantage, and itself used to be bullied frequently by the US, barely a decade ago.

Iran never attacked the US, or any other country. And long before the current Iranian president uttered any words about any country or came to power, Iran was being called as an "evil" country, and was being threatened by the US and Israel. Iran has had more democracy that any of its immediate neighbors, by a long shot. Iran was attacked by Iraq with the help of the US, when the US was Saddam Hussein's friend. The US shot down a civilian Iranian plane. The US supported a dictator emperor that brutalized the Iranian people with his secret service. Iran never transgressed against the US. So where does the US and all the others come up with their righteousness against Iran.

Iran should forge ahead with its full civil program, and not play the game the big powers want it to play. The big powers want to keep Iran vulnerable and dependent. Iran should forge ahead full force with its nuclear civil development, and push comes to shove, Iran can deal with all possibilities. Iran may even do well to tell the IAEA to take a hike, and end its membership in the non proliferation treaty, if it comes to this point.

There are additional reason why in the coming decades nuclear energy will become extremely important, and it is in everyone's interest to see new energy supplies and sources come to market. But, I will not bother to use that as an argument for Iran. The argument stands on its own. Iran has the right to full nuclear civil development, without any restrictions, and even if Iran wanted nuclear weapons, which it is adamant that it does not want, it would seem like a very smart decision to make.

Iran said it will not back down from its complete rights. We will see.

By,
Jamil Talaat Kazoun

Previous Stories:
  US threatens India if it does not support it against Iran   (1/27/2006)
  Larijani: Russia's proposal does not meet Iran's energy demands   (1/27/2006)
  Washington Post: Iraqi Shiite leader will not sit idle if Iran is attacked   (1/25/2006)
  Iran determined to safeguard its nuclear right   (1/24/2006)
  Iran: the world cannot deny us our right to peaceful nuclear technology   (1/23/2006)
  France prepared to nuke Iran if it disobeys   (1/21/2006)
  Amr Moussa: Taking peaceful advantage of nuclear energy Iran's natural right   (1/19/2006)
  Israel and others join efforts to encircle Iran   (1/17/2006)
  Rafsanjani: Iran will break down colonial taboos   (1/12/2006)
  Libya, Iran, North Korea and the nuclear proliferation issue   (12/23/2003)
  India - Pakistan nuclear tests: the positive aspects   (6/1/1998)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search