 |
The Geneva meeting brought together Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili (R), EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana (L), and representatives from several world powers including the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.
|
|
|
The credibility of Iran’s leaders is on the line following the attempt to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions at a recent meeting in Geneva and before an expected new round of talks in the next few days. This meeting brought together Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and representatives from several world powers including the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.
Previous talks between Iran and the international community clearly underscored Iran’s defiance toward the West while the international clearly demonstrated determination to pursue negotiations in an attempt to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.
At the Geneva meeting July 19, Solana proposed to Iran an incentive package that would provide Iran all the nuclear power it would need for civilian purposes, as well as trade in aircraft, energy, high technology and agriculture. By offering these opportunities, the international community demonstrated that it recognized the importance of a guaranteed fuel supply for a civilian nuclear program, and demonstrated its intention to aid the Iranian people.
Nevertheless, Iranian officials immediately rejected the proposal, denouncing it as “insulting” and unworthy of a response, other then to say, “These countries [International Community] – under the pretext of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons – try to deprive Iran from using the vital knowledge of nuclear technology” has, then to be rejected.
The unequivocal refusal by the Iranian regime came after Solana emphasized once again the willingness of the international community to cooperate with Iran in order to find a way to address its needs as well as the international community's concerns. Solana reiterated the international community’s confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s stated nuclear ambition is restored; it will be treated in the same manner as any other non-nuclear weapon state party that is party to the non-proliferation treaty.
Nuclear rights come with responsibilities. Iran must restore the confidence of the international community regarding its nuclear intentions, confidence which, the Islamic revolution has dissipated in the past 28 years.
Iran has shown neither a commitment nor willingness to solve the crisis diplomatically, despite herculean efforts deployed by the international community. Instead, Iran has repeatedly stated that the suspension of its nuclear program is non-negotiable, and has even increased its capacity to produce enriched uranium, speeding Tehran toward its nuclear goals and challenging anyone who dares intervene.
Iran's highest authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the regime will use the latest technology against the country's perceived enemies and “cut off the hand of any aggressor” who dares to try to stop its nuclear program. Such words speak for themselves and render meaningless Iran’s declaration that its nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes.
The reality remains that Iran is a rising power in the Middle East, one whose, leaders aspire to dominate the region and make the country a world power. Iranian leaders have repeatedly expressed their mission: to lead an apocalyptic war against the West that will revive a powerful Islamic empire. Toward that end, Iran is in the midst of conducting a proxy-war against the U.S. and Europe, offering its support to terrorist groups and others. Iran’s ambitions represent the greatest threat to the world since the fall of the Soviet Union, and before that, Nazi Germany.
It would be a mistake to take risks with a country that has not only lost its credibility at the negotiating table but has also openly sponsored and espoused destroying countries and entire regions. It is unfortunate but realistic conclusion based on historical fact that with some regimes, taking is useless. And since the fundamental obligation of sovereign state is to protect its people, taking other measures against Iran, including military actions, must be viewed as a legitimate act of self-defense that require the support of the world community.
