Two thirds of the U.N.'s countries recently signed a communique expressing support for Iran's nuclear energy program and rejecting, what they termed, the United States' unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic. A flashing red light that signals the American policy aimed at isolating Iran in order to curb its nuclear ambitions appears instead to have begun to isolate the United States.
The unequivocal support for Iran emerged at the Summit Meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement held in Tehran during the last week of August, 2012.
The Summit's participants included many world leaders considered friendly to the United States: Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India (who led a delegation of 250 to expand business and cultural ties with Iran); Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai; Qatar's Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani; senior officials from all the Persian Gulf countries; and Mohamed Morsi, the President of Egypt. Morsi's attendance was the first time an Egyptian president has visited Iran since the Islamic Revolution.
India, by the way is a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to let its nuclear weapons facilities be inspected by the international community. No surprise, then, that it is an opponent of the West's sanctions against Iran. China's delegation to the conference was led by its Deputy Prime Minister who also came out in support of Iran's right to nuclear technology. This alignment of Chinese and Indian national interests is an important marker given America's strategic quest to build up India as a counterbalance to China.
Besides the communique opposing American-led sanctions, Iran scored another notable public relations victory at the Summit. Despite strong objections from the United States and Israel, the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon accepted the invitation to attend, saying,
"I believe in the power of diplomacy and I believe in dialogues and I believe in engagement. This is exactly what I did during my visit to Tehran."
And, lest I forget, The 120 countries at the Summit also elected Iran as Chair of the group for the next three years.
If you think the Non-Aligned Movement is simply a grouping of anti-American countries you would be wrong. Even though the countries gathered in Tehran supported Iran's quest for a domestic nuclear capability, they refused to support Iran's position in support of Syrian President Bashar al Assad. An independent streak that adds a lot of credibility to the stature of the organization whose members own 76 percent of world oil resources and 66 percent of the world's gas.
The bottom line? If Iran believes its security and national priorities require that it develop a nuclear capability, then sooner or later that is what it will do. Furthermore, as a sovereign nation and signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has every right to do so. The West might not see it that way, but two-thirds of the U.N.'s countries do. It is time to recognize this reality and revise American policy to reflect it.
The alternative is for America to keep on the path it is on now and likely wind up in a war with Iran, either by itself or in partnership with Israel. A course of action that would be a foreign policy disaster: It would undermine America's economy and security, shred what remains of its credibility in the Middle East and beyond, and make the position of Israel, one of America's closest allies, even more insecure than it is now.
So it is time for Americans to debate whether the current policy of prohibiting Iran from developing a nuclear capability makes sense. If two-thirds of the U.N.'scountries do not think it does, there is a good chance that it does not.
Follow Sarwar Kashmeri on Twitter: www.twitter.com/digvic
The US congress and US media seem to be uninformed and lost. Obama made a comment at the UN the other day - America will do everything it can to stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons - but the audience at the UN knows that Iran has no intention of trying to obtain nuclears weapons.
NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR ALL - NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR NONE is Iran catch phrase - the whole world gets it except the Americans.
Maybe its because Americans just don't get many things even metric international - the US is the only country in the world that uses the old Imperial measurement system.
With all of the technology the Americans seem to be using - why can't they be better informed.
As the author so elegantly put it, any attempt to isolate Iran will also isolate the isolator.
Iran's sanctions is a two edge sword at best.
It is no doubt that it might hurt US a lot in future, specially if the NAM decide to put some actions behind their support of Iran and establish an alternative banking transaction system to SWIFT.
The major harm from Iran's sanctions might come in future, if the sanctions result in NAM moving away from US and UK dominated international banking system and undermine dollar as de-facto currency of the world.
Polls after polls show that Iranians have a very positive views of Americans.
Here is West, politicians try to pretend that Iranians are not behind their government when it comes to Independence or Nuclear program. As a matter of fact Iran's supreme leader has a moderate view regarding Iran's nuclear program and issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Little bit below half of Iranians are for Nuclear Weapons and any aggression from West tip the balance and force Iran's government to give away to public opinion and test a nuclear device if Iran is attacked.
I hope US and Israeli government, specially Mr. Netanyahu knows that pushing Iranians against the wall might have unintended consequences that he does not like at all.
The short-lived olive branch from Obama side in 2009 was jeopardized by an attempt to do a colored revolution in Iran. Mr. Obama has thrown his weight behind the Greens and rejected Mr. Ahmadinejad as elected president of Iran. Of course after that the pressure track was the only track left to follow. Unfortunately this track soon or later will lead to war.
With upcoming election in Iran, If Mr. Obama is elected again, there will be a chance that both countries can negotiate a deal that is beneficial to both parties.
We have to look out for many attempts, from a known third country with strong influence in internal affairs of US, to sabotage this opportunity.
The above article shows how powerful Iran is. Iran's soft-power has two main sources.
1. Cultural influence. Persian empire was extended from Egypt to Greece and to China, enclosing all current countries in ME. Expressions such as “Writings on the Wall” and even part of West religious belief system such as Esther 9:10,9:15-16 has Persian roots.
2. Iran is de-facto controller of Persian Gulf with one third of Oil passing through Iran's tressitorial water.
Iran abides by the same rules and safeguards.
Iran is single out based on fabricated data on a laptop produced by Mossad, allegedly belonging to an Iranian scientist. That intelligence was dismissed by previous IAEA but has been revived by political pressure on the new administration.
Two-thirds in the UN may support Iran's development of nuclear energy...NOT of nuclear weapons. India, for rather obvious reasons being an exception i am sure. If the US attacks Iran it will be to stop them having nuclear weapons - not to stop them having nuclear energy. Apples and oranges.
This is also the first anaysis i have ever read of the situation that did not acknowledge that many Arab governments would prefer that Iran not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. - for all the obvious reasons.
have had enough of America
and her unreasonable demands
when the world reaches a consensus!
the American people who are quite insulated from world opinion
will be insulated no more .
It means only that the West must take more unified positions in dealing with NAM states. I'm not saying this will happen but, if it does not, the West puts itself at risk.
Support for Israel represents justice; caving in to permit Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons (IAEA resolutions makes it almost certain that is the case) represents iniquity -- and disaster for stability in the world.
For Iran to weaponize its enriched uranium, which is in gaseous form. would require technology which it has not pursued. Diversion of enriched uranium for weaponization would be detected immediately by the IAEA.
This article by a former official of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission explains the reality of the situation:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Fall-2011/Nuclear_Report.pdf
Bipolarize the west against the perceived evil and keep hammering away with mis-information on TV.
That's how tou start the war which is supposed to cleanse the world of Islam.
Let's face it, war with Iran would get ugly fast. Americans don't want another war and America going to war with another Islamic country would be horrible for our international image and just breed more hatred among Muslims. Israel unilaterally going to war with Iran would spark terrorism attacks (from the likes of Hezbollah) as well as retaliation from Tehran. It would also have collateral damage effects on U.S. interests abroad. And what if Iran's allies (Russia and China) get involved? That's World War III. The UN won't get anywhere in the Security Council with vetoes from Russia and China and the sanctions seem to only be hurting the Iranian people.
We need a new tactic in our foreign policy with Iran.
The only way to stop Iran from getting one is to keep it from existing. Get used to a nuclear Iran, unless you want the lights off for a long, long time.
Despite desperate maneuvering by Iranian regime. non-aligned nations refused to endorse Iranian policies with Egyptian leader Morsi issuing a scathing critique of Iran,
"Egypt's president Mohamed Morsi has said that the "oppressive" Syrian regime had lost all legitimacy, in a blistering speech in Tehran that provoked the Syrian delegation to storm out and amounted to a stunning rebuke to his Iranian hosts."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/30/egyptian-leader-iran-syrian-rebels
Israel should have nuclear talks with Iran, like the Soviets and America used to, wherein they agree on certain numbers.....
Accept reality, the alternatives are worse.
India and Pakistan fought 3 bloody wars against each other. Until they developed nuclear weapons. How many wars have they fought since? Zero!
And i dont think Iran with nukes makes the world safer, but is that not the game the USA is started?The USA is the only country that is proven to have no fear of using nukes.And with your history and violence way of handeling problems iam more afraid of American nukes than those from other countries.And with that iam not alone.
If anything, we should fear western powers interfering in the lives and freedom of societies in asia/africa/s.america.
When did Iran attack anyone in the last 100 years? Hasn't happened. The real enemy are those western overlords who think they should dictate who has the right to study nuclear physics. Absurd.