|
a catalyst for change through dialogue and understanding
|
AIC Update is funded entirely by tax-deductible donations. Please preserve this public service by contributing to the Council.
GIVE YOUR SUPPORT
|
Secretary General of Hezbollah Party, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, leads pro-Syrian rally in Beirut (US view of Hezbollah has soured US-Iran relations for decades).
|
|
|
|
President George W. Bush (left) - Satellite Photo of Iran's nuclear facilities (right)
|
|
IN THIS ISSUE
Impact on US-Iran Relations:
US Considers Hezbollah's Place in Lebanon
Read More
Good Faith Negotiating: The Role of the United States in European Negotiations
Read More
Anti- War Petitioning: Voices Mature in Movement
Read More
Dr. Javad Zarif on Iran's Nuclear Intentions (excerpts from speech on January 14, 2005)
Read More
Please click on "Read More" or a "Photograph" to be taken to the appropriate story.
|
Hassan Rowhani speaks at two-day conference in Tehran on Iran's nuclear technology. "Today, we are facing peace and stability in our sensitive and strategic region thanks to the correct path Iran has taken which is acceptable to most states."
|
|
|
AIC Update is an information resource for US-Iran relations and the efforts of the American Iranian Council to promote dialogue and understanding between the United States and Iran.
|
Impact on US-Iran Relations:
US Considers Hezbollah's Place in Lebanon
“After years of campaigning against Hezbollah, the radical Shiite Muslim party in Lebanon, as a terrorist pariah, the Bush administration is grudgingly going along with efforts by France and the United Nations to steer the party into the Lebanese political mainstream, administration officials say” (Washington Post, March 10, 2005 “U.S. Called Ready to See Hezbollah in Lebanon Role”)
For decades, Hezbollah has been a point of contention in US-Iran relations, primarily because of its anti-Israeli stance and the support it receives from Iran and Syria. Although Hezbollah is labeled a terrorist group by the United States and is believed responsible for nearly 200 attacks, it remains a serious political force in Lebanon. Hezbollah provides social services, operating schools, hospitals, and agricultural services for thousands of Lebanese Shiites, and made its real presence known on Tuesday, March 8, when it filled downtown Beirut with some 500,000 pro-Syrian supporters. If the United States were to recognize Hezbollah as a legitimate force in Lebanese politics, it would certainly have a far-reaching impact on US-Iran relations.
|
AIC has published and disseminated several important books, studies, and newsletters. These publications clearly demonstrate an objective, impartial, balanced and diverse approach. Please click on book to browse and purchase AIC publications. |
|
Good Faith Negotiating
In recent weeks, the United States has shown increasing interest in throwing its weight behind European incentives aimed at preventing Iran from developing its nuclear program. Concurrently, Iran has become increasingly irritated by the lack of progress in its negotiations with the European Trio (Britain, France, and Germany). Amid these developments questions are raised regarding the seriousness or usefulness of a new US policy towards Iran’s nuclear issue that is based on trading economic incentives for nuclear technology.
In weighing the decision to throw its support behind European negotiations, the Administration has made it clear that it has no interest in initiating a diplomatic scheme that rewards the Iranian regime. President Bush was quoted to have said that “We are working with our friends to make sure not only the world hears that but that the negotiating strategy achieves the objective of pointing out where guilt needs to be, as well as achieving the objective of no nuclear weapons.” (New York Times, Thursday, March 3, 2005). This statement brings to light the Administration’s ultimate strategy, which threatens the fate of the nuclear negotiations.
In the view of Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi, “it appears that the Europeans have made it clear to the Americans that nuclear negotiations are destined to fail. However, if negotiations fail without US engagement, the world will blame the failure on the United States. On the other hand, if the United States joins the negotiations, and they meet their inevitable failure, the blame will be transferred to Iran.” Dr. Amirahmadi is the President of the American Iranian Council, Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Rutgers University, and a frequent contributor to national and international media on Iranian political economy, US-Iran relations, and Middle Eastern affairs.
Negotiations are dangerously close to failing because Iran and Europe are in pursuit of different end games. The notion that nuclear technology and economic incentives are equitable and therefore negotiable is not entirely true. Shannon Kile, of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, was quoted at the end of a two-day conference on nuclear technology in Tehran as saying, “I’m also leaving with the impression that they really believe they have a right to this technology and it’s not just rhetoric and bluff.” Until the United States and Europe come to the realization that Iran’s nuclear drive has surpassed arguments of economic rationality, nuclear negotiations will fail.
|
Anti- War Petitioning
Among a growing list of Iran anti-war petitions, the No War against Iran Petition to President Bush was created by Group of Iranian American of Chicago and written by Mohammad Arasi. The text of that petition follows:
To: President Bush
To His Excellency George W. Bush, President of the United States
Mr. President
As Americans of Iranian origin and Iranian residents of the United States, we are writing you this letter to express our deep concern about the future of Iran and the Middle East. Our apprehension primarily stems from the open threats directed by yourself and members of your administration toward Iran, after the tragic events of September 11th, 2001. These military threats can never be accepted by Iranians and Americans, such as ourselves, who have major disagreement with Islamic Republic of Iran on many issues but also are deeply committed to democracy, liberty, and mutual respect and peaceful coexistence between the peoples of the world. Our deep desire is to see the universal principles enshrined in the International Covenant of Human Rights respected by all states. However, if the avowed claims of the military threats by yourself and your administration are to bring democracy and freedom to Iran, it needs to be said that nowhere in the world has democracy been a fruit born out of militarism and conquest. Iran is a country with a deep rooted and widespread democratic movement. Its people have been struggling against daunting difficulties, both domestic and international. The military threats, and even more draconian economic sanctions advocated by your administration not only will not help the democratic movement of the Iranian population, but they will strengthen the hand of extremists in Iran, who will use your threats as further justification for cracking down on any and all dissent.
Mr. President;
The claim that Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to its neighbors cannot be accepted either, as some of these neighbors are nuclear powers themselves. All Iran’s neighbors have cordial relations with the country and, it is ironic to say, all these neighbors have warned your administration on various occasions to avoid attacking Iran.
Consequently, it is natural for any peace and freedom loving Iranian, from any background, to come to the logical conclusion that the real reasons behind these latest military threats are massive political miscalculation, or the lobbying efforts of the right wing Israeli government and its supporters in the US.
Mr. President;
We would like to assure you that no freedom loving and democratic Iranian group or individual will support you in a military attack on Iran. Those who encourage you in this path are either associates of terrorist organizations, or extremist elements of the previous dictatorial regime of Iran. They encourage this mounting militarism in the United States toward Iran only to punish the Iranian population and to gain revenge. They harbor no love or affection for either the people of Iran or the United States, nor can they be considered supporters of democracy, or of human dignity and liberty.
Mr. President,
We can clearly foresee the catastrophic results of any military strikes or attacks on Iran for the Middle East and the world. It is our sincere hope that these military threats will never be carried out, and that long overdue, serious, and mutually respectful diplomatic bilateral talks will be held between the United states and Iran, to resolve mutual disagreements.
Mr. President;
If, as you have publicly claimed, you are sincere in wanting democracy and freedom for Iran, the best strategy to attain this goal is to make sure that no extremist group in Iran will be able to point to a credible external military threat, or draconian sanctions, in order to justify repression at home.
Mr. President;
You can be assured that if your administration were to pursue such a constructive and rational course, the people of Iran, and all freedom loving and democratic forces in Iran will be highly appreciative of this expression of solidarity and support by the United States, and pursue their struggle toward democratizing their country with even greater zeal and courage.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
The Iran anti-war movement has begun to show increasing maturity in its argument. The above petition calls for “constructive and rational course” with Iran based on the International Covenant of Human Rights, the acceptance of Iran’s peaceful nuclear ambitions, and the understanding that militarism will only inhibit Iranian democratic forces.
|
Dr. Javad Zarif on Iran's Nuclear Intentions
On January 14, 2005, Dr. Javad Zarif, Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations, spoke as part of the American Iranian Council’s Distinguished Speaker Series. Dr. Zarif spent a considerable portion of his lecture on the nuclear issue. The following excerpt from that speech outlines, in detail, the Iranian government’s nuclear intentions.
One is the nuclear issue, and I may, because that is of more interest to many, including myself, deal a bit more in depth with this problem. And then the issue of Iraq. And I’ll leave all other issues that may be of interest to you for you to raise, and I will try to address them as you raise them.
The concern about a program, a desire by Iran to play a hegemonic role in the region now unobstructed by two main rivals in the region, that is, Saddam Hussein and probably the Taliban, is putting the United States in a position of imposing even greater pressure on Iran for its nuclear technology program.
Now even out of this rather contemporary context of developments after September 11, this obsession with the Iranian attempt to acquire technology is the result of a misperception of Iranian strategic calculations. Now let me try to comment and maybe to provoke some concerns on your side about Iranian strategic calculations. And I believe that is an important area of dialogue that needs to be pursued very seriously, and this is what I will try to show.
If tomorrow Iran dismantled its entire nuclear program, nobody can guarantee in this atmosphere of anxiety that Iran will not develop, as they say, nuclear weapons. But if you start examining your assumptions and start building a new type of approach towards Iran, then it becomes a very serious possibility that Iranian calculations today that consider nuclear weapons as detrimental to our national security interest will remain and will be continued.
Let me explain. There is a misperception here in the United States about why Iran needs nuclear energy, and a further misperception here about why Iran has done this clandestinely. These two misperceptions put together create a bigger misperception that because Iran doesn’t need nuclear energy and because it has done it clandestinely, then it must have ulterior motives, that is, nuclear weapons.
Put together with this concern about Iran’s hegemonic tendencies in the region, that becomes a real possibility and a real potential. Now let’s start examining each assumption. They say Iran is rich in oil and gas. So why does it need nuclear energy?
First of all, does anybody need a reason to exercise a right? Does anybody need a reason to exercise an inalienable right? Now as a human rights lawyer, I can tell you that when you define a right as an inalienable right, then you do not need a reason to exercise it.
According to the NPT, the right to nuclear technology for peaceful prefaces is an inalienable right of all nations who accept not to pursue nuclear weapons. So first of all Iran doesn’t need a reason. It is our right. We don’t need to explain to anybody why we intend to pursue that right. And the NPT is rather clear. It says nothing in this treaty can be interpreted as undermining the inalienable right of state parties to pursue nuclear technology. Nothing in the treaty.
So that is the first reason. But the more down to earth reason is that Iran’s oil and gas reserves are finite. With the pace of our development, we will be a net importer of oil and gas in a couple of decades. And we will be totally dependent on foreign sources of energy in about 50 years.
Now no responsible government will accept being dependent on foreign sources of energy for its development, particularly a government that has undergone the experience of Iran where our most basic requirements were denied to us, where today Iran cannot acquire the needs for its civil aviation because of restrictions, where Iran cannot acquire even mine clearing equipment to clear the infested areas of its border which were contaminated with Iraqi mines because they are considered dual-use items, when Iran cannot buy radar equipment in order to detect drug traffickers because they are considered dual-use items.
Oil and gas can be used for fighter aircrafts or tanks. So who can assure Iran that 20 years down the road Iran will be provided with the means of energy if we relied on these empty promises from the outside world. But even today, the most foolish way to spend our natural resources is by burning them. This is our major source of foreign exchange, our major source of hard currency, and it’s much better used through exporting, and more importantly through use in petrochemical industries and other value-added industries where we can derive much more profit from the same resources.
So the argument that is being advanced time and again by the State Department and the White House and others that Iran is so rich in oil and gas and doesn’t need nuclear energy is simply bogus, because it does not take into account the fact that many other countries that have oil and gas have a nuclear energy program, and it does not even try to be consistent.
The United States in the 1970s welcomed Iran’s attempt to diversity its sources of energy. How come all of a sudden that picture is changed? The second is the problem of concealment. They say, if Iran wanted to pursue a bona fide nuclear energy program, it would’ve done it openly. Why did it have to conceal its program?
Now I think the answer is rather clear. The United States has tried successfully for the past 25 years to deprive Iran of access to the most basic scientific and technological advancements. We’ve been deprived, as I said, of access to civilian aircraft. By the same token, we’ve been deprived of access to nuclear technology.
First and foremost, many international mechanisms were created in order to deprive Iran of access to nuclear technology. Iran is on the top of the list of DNSG, of the nuclear suppliers group, of countries blacklisted for access to purely peaceful nuclear technology. And since we’ve been open and we have declared all our facilities, even very limited possibilities that we have of access to nuclear technology, has been removed, and we are facing even more difficulty to have access to technology.
The entire argument about concealment is a product of US policy. Iran would not have had to go through a rather difficult process of less than open and transparent approach to nuclear technology had it not been for the fact that it was deprived of access to the technology in the first place.
And it might be revealing for the future that by trying to prevent Iran from having access to this technology, by trying to prevent Iran from exercising its right in the open transparent way that we have adopted right now, you’re not going to deprive a very proud nation of access to the technology. You simply are going to push it under the rug.
You are simply going to prevent international access to it. Iran will never abandon nuclear technology. That statement comes from every Iranian in the streets in Tehran or Los Angeles. It is a matter of national pride. And it is our right. If you try, if the United States tries to deprive Iran of access to that technology, it will simply make Iran pursue that technology in a less transparent fashion.
So it is in the interest of nonproliferation and in the interest of the international community to allow for a transparent open approach to nuclear technology and if passed as a guide, this will be a much better policy.
Now let me deal with the third misperception in this area, that is Iran’s pursuit of weapons, because they put those two misperceptions together plus the misperception about Iranian hegemonic intentions in the region, and come up with a weapons program.
From a strategic point of view Iran considers a nuclear weapons program detrimental to its security interests; and some of you may question this. Some Iranians do question it, because there is a plurality of opinion in Iran on almost every issue, including on this issue.
|
Please help us to continue our peacemaking endeavors by contributing to our mission. The American Iranian Council depends on the support of its members and readers in order to improve understanding and dialogue between the nations and peoples of the United States and Iran. |
|
Many Iranians believe that a nuclear weapons program is a requirement for Iran. Many Iranians in academia and many Iranians living outside Iran are of the same view. But we believe that is the result of a rather superficial analysis of the Iranian strategic situation, and that is why the government believes, and we believe, that a nuclear weapons program will reduce Iran’s influence, will increase Iran’s vulnerability, and thereby will be detrimental to Iran’s security. And when I say the government I mean the entirety of the government, including the leadership and the governing apparatus in Iran.
Let me explain why we believe that.
It will reduce Iran’s influence because Iran is already the biggest power in the region. We have been forced to show that we do not have expansionist intentions. That comes with the territory; we are the biggest country in the region, and smaller countries in the region are concerned. Although Iran over the past two and a half centuries has never launched a war of aggression against any of its neighbors, has always defended itself against wars, but nevertheless merely because of our size and our capabilities we already have had to go out of our way in order to convince our neighbors that we want to establish good neighborly relations with them.
A nuclear weapons program will simply destroy whatever we have achieved in that area. And it will get us involved in an arms race that we do not have the means to engage in. In the area of vulnerabilities, a nuclear weapons program will simply add to our vulnerabilities. Even the perception that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program has created such a major vulnerability for Iran.
A program with nuclear weapons will exacerbate those vulnerabilities because Iran will never be able to acquire the type of nuclear weapons and the type of means of delivery that would be capable of a first or second strike in the areas of security concern for Iran. I do not want to expand on that at this stage. If you have any questions about that I’ll be happy to respond.
But I believe that if you put yourselves in the shoes of Iranian decision makers and determine our threat perceptions, that is, what constitutes a nuclear threat against Iran, a possible nuclear threat against Iran that would require a nuclear response, and whether by engaging in a nuclear weapons program Iran is capable of addressing that nuclear threat through a nuclear deterrence policy, you will come up with the same answer. That outside this rather superficial naïve analysis that having a couple of bombs will basically save you from any possible foreign threat, in fact having a couple of bombs makes you a sitting target for foreign threats.
Now if we address these three misperceptions, consider the fact that Iran has the right to acquire nuclear technology. Consider the fact that Iran’s discreet acquisition of nuclear technology has been a condition that has been forced on Iran, not of Iran’s choosing. And consider the fact that for Iran, pursuit of nuclear weapons does not amount to a security option that will augment Iran’s security. Then it will be possible to come up with a solution that will not deprive Iran of its rights, because that is impossible.
Iran will never accept it. No Iranian nor any Iranian government can ever accept being deprived of access to the technology. But at the same time we’ll be able to guarantee the international community that our rather substantial knowledge in this area will never be used for acquisition of nuclear weapons.
This is the major thrust of our negotiations with the Europeans. Now the United States has chosen to stay on the sidelines, but in fact to try to torpedo these negotiations through whatever means it can. I believe the US doesn’t have any other option but to see the success of these negotiations. It can play a more constructive role.
But I believe continuing the current policy of trying to destroy the process of negotiations by presenting a solution that is based on the criteria that I just explained will not open new possibilities for the US. It will in fact destroy the possibilities that have already been opened.
The American Iranian Council’s Distinguished Speakers Series provides an open platform to
encourage constructive arguments and discussions on US-Iran relations. While certain policymakers, pundits, and war mongers are hard at work pursuing a US military venture into Iran, the Council promotes events committed to fostering peace and providing a vehicle for dialogue and understanding between the United States and Iran. This series is only possible with your SUPPORT.
|
Vision
The vision of the American Iranian Council is that the United States and Iran will work together, since their common interests far outweigh their differences. AIC also envisions the Iranian-American community playing an increasingly significant role in American society, and Iran becoming a democratically developed member of the global community with full respect for human rights.
|
Mission
The mission of AIC is to be a constructive force, in cooperation and partnership with other organizations, in bringing the United States and Iran together, involving the Iranian-American community in the dialogue, and bringing attention to social and political conditions in Iran.
|
Goals
The three interrelated goals of the American Iranian Council are:
1.
To serve as a platform for sustained dialogue on U.S.-Iran relations.
2. To serve as a catalyst to educate all Americans, including Iranian-Americans, regarding this dialogue.
3. To serve as a forum for discussion of issues of importance in Iranian society.
|
|
|
