Despite the enormous attention to Iran's nuclear program and the routine description of it as an enormous problem, measures intended to deal with this problem have an enormous gap. There has been no exploration jointly with the Iranians, and almost none unilaterally in U.S. policy discourse, of possible safeguards of an Iranian program that would include the enrichment of uranium. There are all manner of inspections, on-site monitoring, and other procedural arrangements that could be explored to determine if they might form the basis of an agreement that would meet the minimum needs of both sides. But the exploration has never occurred. All we have on the U.S. side are some mutterings by the secretary of state about how maybe, possibly, someday Iran could be entrusted with an enrichment program. The western stance of no enrichment, coupled with a political environment in the United States in which Iran is demonized and anything that could be interpreted as a favorable gesture toward the Islamic Republic is politically dangerous, has so far preempted any moves to fill the gap.
Last week the head of Iran's atomic energy agency offered in a speech to allow international inspectors “full supervision” of all of Iran's nuclear activities for five years if sanctions on Iran are lifted. The offer was vaguely worded, and issues of timing and sequencing regarding the sanctions part of the formula might be difficult to work out. But it would be a mistake to respond as Americans have too often responded, which is to assume the worst about the intentions on the other side and to act in a way that would make sense only if that assumption were true, even though we don't know it to be true. It would make far more sense to act with the realization that as far as we know the Iranian statement could be anything from a major breakthrough to a phony bit of rhetoric. The only way to find out is to explore the unexplored road and talk with the Iranians about it. If the favorable possibility turns out to be true, talking could be the first step toward a comprehensive safeguards agreement. If the unfavorable possibility turns out to be true, little or nothing is lost; in fact the Western case for pressuring Iran would be strengthened by demonstrating that the West is willing to go the extra mile.
The only way in which this approach would not make sense is if talk about peacefully resolving the impasse over the Iranian nuclear issue is preparation for later making a case for launching a war against Iran. Unfortunately, some in the United States (and in Israel) who comment a lot on this matter seem to be doing exactly that. And when those people come to say that war is necessary because peaceful means have been tried and failed, that statement—if the unexplored road stays unexplored—will be false.
Comments
Regime Change in Iran While Iran’s nuclear program is in development, and Iranian President Ahmadinejad in the U.N. general assembly, for several years in roll, he called 9/11 terrorist acts mysterious, and said the U.S. used it as a pretext to attack Iraq and Afghanistan, also he repeated comments casting doubt on the origins of the Holocaust.On July 26, 2011 U.S. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, who is nominated to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, that “Iran was working toward a massive attack to force the American military out of Iraq. Dempsey cited the bombing by the Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah in 1983 in which 241 Marines were killed.” By a truck loaded with explosives blew up in front of the American Embassy in Beirut. When on November4,1986 the president of Iran to be Rafsanjani said the blow the U.S. received in Lebanon “is attributed to us and it should be.” Five years later, on July20,1991 the former Revolutionary Guards Corps Minister, Mohsen Rafiqdoust, admitted, “The TNT and ideology (for the Beirut bombing of the Marine barracks) were sent there from Iran.”Gen. added, “Iran’s activities in southern Iraq are intended to produce some kind of Beirut-like moment and in so doing, to send a massage that they have expelled us from Iraq”, as it happened in Beirut.On August 28, 2007, Iran’s president, Ahmadinejad, declared a “readiness to fill the great power vacuum” in the region. In addition, a few weeks later, he told the UN General Assembly, “I officially declare that the era of post second World War relationships have ended. Palestine and Iraq will be cleared of the occupiers and the people of Europe will be free of the pressures of the Zionists.” The best way to achieve regime change in Tehran is for the U.S. government to empower the Iranian opposition, the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (MEK). Empowerment requires removal of the main Iranian opposition groups from the foreign terrorist list, which it has been maintained only by the U.S . Only regime change in Tehran can ensure that extremist Iranian terrorism regime do not wind up with the bomb and its wrong ideology.The MEK and National Consul of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) are feared by the Tehran regime more than any groups, according to research of the Iran Policy Committee. The IPC finds that state run Iranian media assail the MEK and mention it 230 percent more than all others opposition groups combined.The clerical dictators in Iran rightfully should fear the MEK. The MEK has vast support both inside and outside of Iran. It stands for democratization, freedom of religion, and is a shining example of civil society, protecting minority rights and treating women and men equally. The MEK has been the main source of intelligence on Iranian nuclear sites, exposing Iran’s decade’s long deception by revealing once hidden major nuclear sites in Iran.On September 17,2011 a senior panel of former Secretaries, Generals, and Governors, as well as State and justice Departments officials and attorney General Michael Mukasey, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Governor Ed Rendell, Ambassador John Bolton, and FBI Director Louis Freeh denounced the continuing designation of the MEK was acting as a license for genocide at Camp Ashraf, Iraq, On July 2010, the MEK won a ruling from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the Secretary of State must reconsider the designation of MEK as a foreign terrorist organization because the information she was relying on to continue that designation was not sufficient.In May 2003, the MEK voluntarily signed a disarmament agreement with the American forces in Iraq. After sixteen months investigation by American to determine whether anyone had any links to terrorism, all 3800 passed the test, which included DNA samplings.Subsequently, the residents of Ashraf received “protected persons” status under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. From day first until the end of 2008, the residents of campAshraf remained under the protection of American forces. The Iraqi government which has long been allied with the Iranian terrorist regime continues to take orders from Tehran concerning the CampAshraf. As the Iranian regime regards the MEK residents of Ashraf as its number one enemies, it has repeatedly demanded of Baghdad that it close down the Camp and repatriates the residents to Iran.The Camp has been attacked twice by Iraqi forces, once in July 2009 and once in April 2011, and both times, when the secretary of defense of the U.S. was present in Iraq. The last time resulting in the murder of 36 defenseless women and men using weapons and vehicle supplied by the U.S. and operated by troops and train by the U.S. And the U.S. has done nothing about it. Wes Martin wrotes on NY times: As the first colonel to command Camp Ashraf in Iraq, where the main Iranian opposition movement, the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) is located, I should like to think I can speak with some authority about this deeply misunderstood organization now at the center of a fierce debate in Washington.The MEK is the largest component of the National Council of the Resistance to Iran (NCRI), Iran's parliament in exile. They established several bases inside Iraq in 1986, when Iraq was locked in a war with Iran.Today, as Iraq grows ever closer with Iran, the MEK is being targeted for annihilation in its temporary Iraqi home at Camp Ashraf. The marginalization and murder of MEK members defies American values and interests - but far too little has been done about it.The group was previously thrown to the wolves by the Clinton administration, which placed the MEK on the State Department's terrorist list at Iran's request in a futile effort at rapprochement in the late 1990s. Not only was a grave injustice done to the democratic opposition to Tehran, but America's reward for appeasement has been Iran's sprint toward nuclear weapons, attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and its crushing of the human rights of its people.The MEK surrendered to the U.S. military in 2003 without firing a shot, turned over all its weapons, accepted consolidation at Camp Ashraf and fulfilled every requirement placed on it. The MEK has even provided reliable intelligence to the U.S concerning Iran's nuclear program and interference in Iraq.What did the MEK get in return? Nothing we should be proud of. As part of its drawdown, the U.S. turned over the protection of Ashraf to the Iraqi government in January 2009. Twice since then, the Iraqi military has attacked the camp, killing or wounding hundreds. Today, the 3,400 remaining people in Camp Ashraf live in constant fear.These are the facts.With the State Department about to announce a decision on whether or not to remove the MEK from its terror list, anti-MEK "experts" are popping up everywhere in the American media to discredit the group. These "experts" range from the sister of a Clinton administration State Department official who admitted spending but hours analyzing the group, to Iranian-Americans who have consistently and publicly defended the Iranian regime. Their claims range from the MEK being a Marxist/Leninist Islamic extremist organization to it being a dangerous cult in which women are automatons, marriage is prohibited and members are prevented from leaving. %A0 They claim the group has no support inside Iran or harbors terrorist ambitions.These "experts" are maligning a group I have come to know up close and personally. Firstly, this is no Marxist cult. The MEK was founded on democratic principles, including equality between government and governed, between men and women and among various religions and races. The MEK also believes the clergy should not have total control over interpretation of the Koran, nor should the clerics have total control over their congregations. Contrary to a recent claim by Elizabeth Rubin, sister of Jamie Rubin, a former spokesman for the State Department, the MEK promotes the empowerment of women.Concerning the ability of members to depart the organization: At Ashraf I had responsibility for almost 200 people who left for Kurdistan. As for the claim that the group has no support in Iran, I ask the experts, where was I getting the intercepted sensitive intelligence that a State Department officer was releasing to a well-known Iranian sympathizer within the Iraqi government?My colleagues and I had unfettered access to Ashraf. As a matter of fact, the only time Americans have been denied access to Ashraf was in 2011, when the Iraqi government refused to allow visitation by a congressional delegation. I know for a fact the MEK does not have weapons. Just search for "Ashraf" on YouTube to see horrific videos of attacks on the camp by the Iraqi Army in 2009 and 2011, in which MEK members armed only with courage rescued their fallen comrades.A decision by the State Department that is based on the facts on the ground will result in the MEK being removed from its terrorist list and added to America's kit bag in managing its greatest strategic threat: the Iranian regime. Any decision to the contrary is to the benefit only of this repressive theocracy and its allies. Martin, who retired as a colonel in the U.S. Army, served as the senior antiterrorism/force protection officer for all coalition forces in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom. MEK is U.S. allies. They are the one first time in 2003 provided the international community with vital information on Iran’s secrat nuclear sites, also it was the MEK provided the world with details about Iran’s terrorist training camps and more MEK exposed a list of 32,000 Iranian proxies in Iraq. Furthermore, MEK unified the Iraqi people to fight terrorism and Iran’s interference.MEK never ever should be in FTO list in first place, now U.S. should seek removal of the MEK from U.S. FTO list immeditly, as EU and British did . This course of action is recommended by members of Congress from both parties and by FBI Director and by the Court of Appeals for District of Columbia and is long overdue.