No one is happy that Iran is producing enriched uranium, but what are the options to deal with that fact? War? That would be insane in the current world political and economic situation. Only a Cheney would consider the use of military force the one and only solution to the conundrum of Iran’s nuclear ambitions (the scope of which no doubt varies from one political figure to the next, just as in any country).
Maybe it’s time to cut a deal with Iran, the deal that’s been on the table for weeks now, rather than continuing to rattle the useless saber of economic sanctions:
World powers should seriously consider a newly-drafted fuel swap plan for Iran to part with some of its nuclear material, even if it is not perfect, a group of high-profile experts said.
The nine experts, including former weapons inspector David Kay, former U.S. Under Secretary of State Tom Pickering and arms control experts Jeffrey Lewis and Daryl Kimball, said the offer should be seen as a possible diplomatic opportunity.
Turkey and Brazil last month resurrected parts of a U.N.-backed offer for Tehran to part with 1,200 kg of its low-enriched uranium in return for special fuel rods for a medical research reactor.
As with all diplomatic solutions it involves a compromise, but we have to start somewhere, and the sooner the better say these experts in the field of nuclear non-proliferation:
The group of foreign policy and nuclear non-proliferation experts said in a statement on Tuesday however that the new offer should not be dismissed.
“We urge the so-called Vienna Group (Russia, France, the United States, and the IAEA) to seriously pursue this proposal as an opening for further diplomatic engagement with Iran on outstanding issues of concern,” they said.
The statement was distributed by the Washington-based National Iranian American Council, a think tank supported by Iranian Americans and U.S. foundations. The non-proliferation experts are independent figures who work for other think tanks and include respected analysts in the field.
Sometimes the refusal to take the first step is the catalyst for disaster. It’s time to walk away from confrontation with Iran and begin a dialogue. Is the current proposal everything the Western powers would want? Of course not. But ask yourself this? Which countries represents the greatest threat to peace and security in Southwest Asia. Iran, which doesn’t have nuclear weapons yet, doesn’t make the list.
No, the two greatest threats to peace in the region are the two powers who already possess large numbers of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them: Pakistan and Israel. Pakistan because it is a war torn, fractured and nearly failed state. Israel because it is governed by the most radical extreme right wing government in decades which views military force as the primary means of conducting its international affairs.
Iran’s President may make a pest of himself now and then. He may very well be an illegitimate ruler in light of the election controversy last year. However, America has conducted diplomatic relations with characters at least as bad in the past who we knew in no uncertain terms had actual ongoing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs (Saddam Hussein in the Reagan years and Mao in the Nixon years to name but two).
I think we can come to terms with Iran, which is far less of a threat and far less of a military aggressor than Saddam ever was. We don’t have to like President Ahmadinejad to reach an accommodation with him. I hate to drag out this quote from Winston Churchill all the time but it is appropriate to our current situation:
“To jaw-jaw- is always better than to war-war”
Time to get serious about our jaw -jawing President Obama, don’t you think?
