Has diplomacy reached the end in the Middle East?

Iranians have long held a historic belief that they have a rightful place as a key power in the region. Their distinct non-Arab identity is only compounded by the fact that they are Shiite Islamists, in contrast to the Arab Sunni dominated, and largely more pro-Western countries in the region.

Iran has remained regionally isolated since 1979 and many neighbouring Muslim countries, not just Israel, remain highly suspicious and anxious of Iran.

Ironically, Iran has at times reveled in its isolationism which has served well to stoke national sentiments and also increase the foothold of Islamist theocracy. While the clerics may halt their program, it’s very unlikely that the US would halt its program for regime change.

Iranian resistance

Iranian persistence in not succumbing to what it sees as “bullying” tactics to end its nuclear program is enforced by international protocols that act as a guideline to nuclear development by any government which is a signatory to such pacts.

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat (NPT), which Iran is a party to, a country has the right to enrich enough uranium to fuel civilian power stations, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guarding the principles of the treaty. So put simply, Iran does have the right in principle to pursue uranium enrichment, which has only raised tensions in Iran that the series of UN sanctions and the objections against its program are being driven by political agendas.

Orders from the UN council, however, supersede other rights and are fueled somewhat by the fact that Iran hid its enrichment program for 18 years. The plea to stop uranium enrichment is based on the lack of international confidence on Iran’s intentions. Iran is unlikely to be allowed to diplomatically pursue its nuclear program until the West is confident in the motives and shape of such a program. Ironically, such confidence will not be reached until the Iranian regime changes.

Though the IAEA has highlighted Iranian non-compliances and has stated that Iran has accumulated more low-enriched uranium than first thought, this is not “enriched” to the levels needed to make a nuclear device and has also indicated that it has found no evidence that it has diverted such materials for the pursuance of a nuclear weapon. However, some reports, particularly those emanating from Israel, paint a different story.

The practice of double standards?

Somewhat ironically, the idea of expansion of nuclear capability in the Middle East is not new. Egypt has announced plans to build a number of nuclear power stations to generate electricity. Egyptian plans have received backing from the US, which has stated that there is no comparison to the controversial nuclear projects of Tehran.

Saudi Arabia, even with the largest oil reserves in the world, is developing a civilian nuclear power supply, seemingly in response to its Iran. States which are part of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) have also signaled their desire to develop joint nuclear technology. Jordan has also signaled its desire to build its first nuclear power plant.

Clearly, the Iranian gripe is easy to see.

Even more ironic perhaps is the frequent notion that Iranian nuclear ambition is a new phenomenon. In fact, the birth of its nuclear program can be traced back to the onset of the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi after 1953. A predominantly pro-Western state before 1979, much of the West scrambled to do business with Iran in that time including in the sphere of nuclear technology.

This shows that the nuclear crisis is evidently linked to politics or more specifically the regime in question, thus the argument of double standards is obvious.