Sanctions or war will not bring regime-change in Iran

“Israel doesn’t want to expose itself directly (war with Iran) and desires its objective to be done through the United States,” says Pakistan Senator Lt. Gen. Javed Ashraf Qazi, former head of Pakistan secret servic ISI (1993-95).

After almost one year – the so-called ‘World Marshals (5+1)’ have agreed to meet Iranian leaders face to face on December 5, 2010 to bully Iran once again to surrender its civilian nuclear program so that the Zionist entity remain the sole nuclear poer in the Middle East. However, the Iranian suggestion that the proposed meeting be held in Istanbul scares the hell out of the 5+1 ZOGs. They have made a counter-proposal that the avenue should be either Geneva or Vienna. Iron-lady Catherine Ashton, EU foreign policy chief said on Monday that “we (5+1)” like Geneva as the most desirable city to hold the meeting.

While the so-called ’5+1′ want the talks to focus on the Iranian nuclear program, Iran insists that the talks should also focus on regional peace and disarmament issues, specifically the Zionist regime’s nuclear weapons program.

The Iranian-born American author, Hooman Majd, on November 19, 2010 wrote in th Global Expert Finder:

A hallmark of the Obama administration’s Iran policy has been a dual track approach to its contentious nuclear program: diplomacy, and pressure on the regime. An improvement, to be sure, over President Obama’s predecessor’s policy—essentially all pressure and no diplomacy—but pressure, the Iranians have stated time and time again, will not achieve its stated goal, namely, that Iran suspend enrichment of uranium on its soil and that Iran negotiate in earnest over what kind of nuclear technology the West will allow it to possess. Diplomacy that is hobbled by pressure will not succeed either. Perhaps Western and Israeli leaders have a difficult or impossible time separating Iranian rhetoric from reality, but anyone who knows the Iranians should easily recognize that they’re not exaggerating or lying when they say they refuse to compromise under pressure and threats, and that they don’t appreciate being likened to farm animals, as they believe they are, whenever “carrots and sticks” are promoted as a policy to force them to change their behavior.

The Iranian government has spent years explaining and defending its nuclear program to its people, to the point where cab drivers in Tehran can recite the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) article that entitles Iran to uranium enrichment, and giving up that right in the face of pressure from foreign powers would be a catastrophic defeat for the Islamic Republic—a nation that has suffered under various sanctions regimes since almost its inception. A revolutionary leadership—and this includes the opposition to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Green, and otherwise—that declared from the moment of its victory over the Western-allied monarchy that it would pursue an independent path in international relations and that it would protect the nation’s national interests at all costs, will not under any circumstances give in to Western demands, not if those demands conflict with the nation’s rights under international law or treaties it has signed.

Sanctions are indeed hurting ordinary Iranians—“Ali the Plumber” if you will—by contributing to inflation, severely and negatively impacting investment and as consequence unemployment, but if one goal of debilitating sanctions is to induce the people to rise up and overthrow their leaders, Western leaders are misreading not just the Iranian leadership, but the opposition and the Iranian people, too. And those who believe sanctions should not be just linked to the nuclear issue but also to Iran’s human rights record, in the hope of empowering the opposition to the government, also misread the Iranian leadership but more importantly the nature of that opposition, mistakenly ascribing to it a desire for regime-change as well as realignment of Iran’s strategic position from independence to ally of the West.

Sanctions, or any kind of external pressure or even threats of military action, will be, in the end, self-defeating. In dealing with Iran we have moved from pressure alone to diplomacy plus pressure, all the while including military threats to force the Iranian government to do as it’s told. Turkey and Brazil, two countries that understand Iran and Iranians better than either the U.S. or the Europeans, have insisted that a third way, diplomacy alone, is the only solution to the nuclear crisis and other issues of contention between Iran and the international community. Perhaps it’s time we listen to them, if we don’t want to listen to the Iranians themselves.

This entry was posted in World News. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s