Opinion
Diplomacy vs. hostility in Iran talks
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Fayyad Sbaihat:
- Two-state option not viable for Palestine (April 7, 2005)
- American media is in need of reform (April 21, 2005)
- Alliance of misinformed, morally bankrupt supporting Israel (May 5, 2005)
- John Bolton-wrong man for UN ambassador job (March 17, 2005)
- Board of Regents must support divestment (March 3, 2005)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
So, negotiations work! Who would have thought?
Germany, the United Kingdom and France are currently holding talks with Iran over that country’s nuclear program. A tentative agreement has been reached, and a more comprehensive one appears to be in the works. The agreement is expected to include Iran’s suspension of its uranium enrichment program in exchange for trade deals and the ability to buy nuclear fuel from the European Union.
For a long time, the United States has maintained a “tough-talk-no-negotiation” diplomacy towards Iran. Not only is this diplomacy expectedly a failure, variations of it have already proven as such. Viewing the various scenarios in dealing with members of George Bush’s “axis of evil” one can see the extent of damage such diplomacy, or lack thereof, has caused.
In the case of North Korea, the United States has maintained a hostile position. This is widely believed to have accelerated that country’s efforts toward having nuclear weapons. Now the United States is in position of having to appease the North Koreans, as they can harm the United States.
In the case of Iraq, the United States took to using force rather rapidly. Iraq’s WMDs, the pretext for war, are nowhere to be found, and it is confidently thought that they did not even exist for years prior to the war. The result is the near complete destruction of a large country’s infrastructure and more than 100,000 civilian casualties and counting.
The condescending approaches the United States has used and the refusal to recognize the opponents as equals have backfired and are likely to do so more pronouncedly if maintained against Iran, a far larger and more powerful country that Iraq or North Korea.
Iran is a signatory of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which grants it the right to possess peaceful nuclear technology. So far, there has been no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, aside from the uranium enrichment program, which, along with being used for weapons, is also the necessary fuel for a nuclear reactor.
If the program is eventually to be used for weapons, it is regarded as a golden shield, rather than a golden bullet. Iran has never started an attack on the United States, and the sentiment on the streets of Tehran is that Iran would never be the initiator of nuclear confrontation.
On the contrary, the United States has a history of hostility toward Iran. Among other incidents, the United States Navy downed an Iranian civilian airplane in the summer of ‘88, killing 290 passengers. The United States also allied with Saddam Hussein and supplied him with weapons throughout his war with Iran.
Irrespective of their views of the governing regime, Iranians stand largely in support of their country’s nuclear program. The attitude is, “If the United States, United Kingdom and Israel can have it, why can’t we?” Many Iranians believe the United States is looking for an opportunity to attack them, and observing the situation in neighboring Iraq only enforces such perceptions. Israel (who refuses to sign the nonproliferation treaty) has also stated repeatedly its desire to launch an attack against Iran’s facilities. Given that it has launched attacks into Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, it is clear that Iran’s ability to retaliate has so far prevented such attacks, an argument that is often used as a reminder to why Iran needs to remain strong and acquire competitive power.
Iranians, whose support and endorsement of the nuke program is rivaling that of the 1950s in support of nationalizing the oil industry in the face of external exploitation, resent the EU’s proposal to provide Iran with nuclear fuel in exchange for abandoning the technology enrich uranium and make the fuel, a move widely seen as an attempt to preempt Iran’s technological independence of the west.
Nuclear races and militarism in the Middle East are dangerous to the future of the region. Military imbalance and the presence of one superpower without accountability, however, is far more dangerous and detrimental, even in the short term.
Demilitarizing the Middle East must be balanced, and different parties need to give up equivalent levels of destructive technology. The best way to talk Iran into giving up a nuclear program is through bringing Israel to sign the nonproliferation treaty and requiring it to dismantle its nuclear warheads, accompanied by guarantees of no United States military aggression against Iran, but this step may have to wait until an administration is in power that recognizes international law.
Fayyad Sbaihat (frsbaihat@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in chemical engineering.
19 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
Yeah, Iran really needs nuclear power plants, since it doesn't have any oil or anything.
Fayyad, the day Iran stops supporting terrorists will be the day the West actually starts to care. Last I checked, Hell hasn't froze over.
Yeah, negotiation really works. Until Iran decides they don't like the terms anymore and violates their agreements, as they have done repeatedly. That's a common tactic used by Islamofascist regimes throughout the Middle East.
I'm in such a good mood today that I can't even get upset about Sbaihat's usual shilling for genocidal savages.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some candy to pass out. ULULULULULULULU!
Didn't Jimmy Carter get the Nobel Peace prize for the negotioations which led to North Korea promising not to develop a-bombs?
Do you actually think that Iran will keep any promises?
***
"Iran has never started an attack on the United States"
WTF? So that thing with the embassy hostages during Jimmy's time was good diplomacy and represented "an administration is in power that recognizes international law"?
Speechless...the absolute insanity of everything you write just makes me wonder if you understand how "gone" you sound?
Actually, Sbaihat is right, we hardly give diplomacy a chance. Obviously the tough talk with Korea bit us in the ass, and the invation of Iraq, is becoming another unjustifiable Vietnam, so let's be at least smart enough to think about a new approach.
OH, BS, why do we let this guy write, no one agrees with him anyway...
Well, what would be the point of writing something you agree with, is that your idea of journalism?
It's already a bad thing of you have wrong views, but it's even worse if you are closed and opposed to hearing new ones.
"OH, BS, why do we let this guy write, no one agrees with him anyway..."
And yet the rumor is that he wants to bring his terrorist pals to our campus next year for the next PSM terrorist meeting.
What, Who's coming to campus?
What, Who's coming to campus? Where did you get that?
PSM -- the Palestine Solidarity Movement. There's a rumor that they want to have their annual conference next year here on our campus. This is the group that met at the University of Michigan two years ago and chanted "Kill the Jews." Last year when they met at Rutgers, swastikas were painted on campus buildings, including the Hillel and a Jewish fraternity. PSM has consistently supported suicide bombings and is closely affiliated with the International Solidarity Movement, which is known to have assisted at least two suicide bombers in sneaking through Israeli security in order to get to their targets and murder innocent people.
A friend of mine sent me a few things indicating that the poster who said they were coming here is right. There's a petition against it already:
http://www.petitiononline.com/stopPSM/petition.html
Some people have been contacting Chancellor Wiley's office in protest. Here's the standard reply they get:
"Thank you for your email to Chancellor John Wiley. Though the
university has received many emails on this topic, we have not been
approached or granted any request to host the 2005 Palestinian
Solidarity Movement conference.
If such a request is ever received (with a registered UW-Madison
organization as its sponsor), it will be reviewed and evaluated based
on its conformity with existing UW-Madison and UW System facilities use
policies.
John Lucas
John Lucas
University Communications
University of Wisconsin-Madison
608/262-8287
jplucas@wisc.edu"
It would make sense for PSM to try to come here. Fayyad is one of their national spokespeople.
So, what do we know about this Fayyad guy? Who is he working with? What are they doing? Who's combating them?
excellent, well-thought out article
Sbaihat is a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine as are both his brothers Mohammed and Layth near Jenin. Write
the FBI and demand he be deported.PFLP is a terrorist organization per the US State Department and was responsible for terrorist
attacks in Israel such as the Lod Airport red Army attack. Ask homeland security why he is running around...
Sbaihat is an interesting character, not least because this is the third academic year during which he has described himself as a "senior majoring in chemical engineering" in his Wisconsin Badger Herald column. This raises the interesting possibility that, with sympathetic editors, a political activist could embark on a permanent career as an "undergraduate" newspaper columnist.
Sbaihat regularly pens anti-Semitic articles. In one, posted by the Twin Cities Independent Media Center on Feb. 13, 2004, he describes Neo-conservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Douglass Feith, Richard Perle, and Bill Kristol, this way. "Former Pro Israel lobbyists... attempting to assume control of U.S. Policy to fight Israel's wars and reshape the Middle East on its behalf."
http://twincities.indymedia.org/newswire/display/15879/index.php
In others he employs exaggerated rhetoric that tends to demonize Israelis and Jews. Writing, for example, about how "Israel slaughters the Palestinian population." (http://www.badgerherald.com/oped/2004/10/21/inexcusable_muslim_s.php) Or accusing Prime Minister Sharon of deviously desiring bloodshed: "The bombing in Jerusalem was an expected and desired (by Sharon) outcome of the Gaza incursion, and the emerging fact is Sharon will soon have as much Israeli blood on his hands as he does Palestinian." (http://www.badgerherald.com/oped/2004/01/30/bombing_in_jerusalem.php)
The "student" organization that Sbaihat runs at Wisconsin is Al Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition. Like the Palestine Solidarity Movement, Al Awda supports the terrorism of the intifada and works to eliminate Israel and replace it with a Muslim state. http://www.adl.org/Israel/israel_protest_calendar_groups.asp#1
Unsurprisingly, Sbaihat opposed the Geneva Accords, on the grounds that they accepted the right of "the Israeli polity as a 'Jewish State'" to exist. http://www.antiimperialista.com/view.shtml?category=9&id=1073414247&keyword=+
Homeland security knows that Sbaihat is a member of the PFLP. Write them and demand his deportation.