Tehran – Discussions on Iran’s nuclear program are once again at the forefront of US foreign policy talks, with a recent article in the Wall Street Journal advocating for Iran’s total nuclear disarmament.
The work entitled “The Art of Nuclear Trade with Iran” places a report from the Foundation for Democracy, which argues that Iran needs to completely eliminate nuclear infrastructure, and likens the scenario for voluntary disarmament in South Africa in 1990, and tells only the 2003 nuclear supplement to the 2003 nuclear supplement. I’ll glue it on.
However, this story is fundamentally problematic. It overlooks the historical context of Iran’s nuclear initiative, the double standards of US and Israeli actions, and the effects of previous Western interventions in Western Asia. For true diplomacy, Washington needs to move from coercion to a fair and respectful negotiation method.
Hypocritical demands for nuclear disarmament
One of the central arguments in the report is that Iran should follow the examples of South Africa and Libya. However, these comparisons are unbearable. South Africa abolished its nuclear program as part of a peaceful shift from apartheid, but not due to external pressure. In contrast, Libya abandoned its nuclear targets in 2003 following the US invasion of Iraq. This is a decision that ultimately failed to protect the Libyan regime from Western intervention. Iran is fully aware of this history and has no reason to believe that unilateral disarmament will bring security or stability.
Furthermore, expectations for Iran to abandon its nuclear program are clear double standards. Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and consistently allows testing by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Conversely, Israel, which possesses nuclear weapons, has never signed the NPT and does not allow international testing of nuclear sites. However, there is no demand for Israel to abandon its weapons. If the objective is not truly spreading, Washington and its partners will not only consider rivals, but implement the same standards for all parties.
This article portrays Iran as a country that uses negotiations to gain more time for its nuclear program. However, history reveals another story. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA) was a key agreement that imposed strict restrictions on Iran’s nuclear operations in exchange for easing sanctions. Iran has complied with the contract as verified several times by the IAEA. In 2018, the Trump administration unilaterally withdrawn the agreement from the agreement and reinstated sanctions despite full compliance by Iran. This action shattered the last remnants of confidence in the US’s diplomatic efforts.
After the US withdrawal, Iran initially continued to adhere to the terms of the JCPOA, hoping that European countries would support the termination of transactions. Only after it became clear that Washington’s sanctions would be maintained could Iran gradually reduce its commitment. The idea that Iran is responsible for breaking the agreement is a deliberate misrepresentation of fact.
The very voice that has now challenged the JCPOA is advocating for a new agreement. This requires Iran to provide exchange acceptance or concessions while completely eliminating its nuclear infrastructure.
Sanctions are not diplomacy, but as a tool for economic warfare
The central point mentioned in this article is that Iran has a vulnerable economy and if sanctions rise, it forces the government to surrender. This is the same approach the US has adopted for years and has proven to be a recurring failure. Sanctions have certainly affected everyday Iranians, but they have never collapsed or forced Iran to abandon its nuclear program. Conversely, they simply increased doubt and urged Iran to pursue various economic allies such as China and Russia.
The claim that Iran’s economy is about to collapse is equally deceptive. Despite years of economic tensions, Iran coordinated by strengthening its domestic industry and creating new trade partnerships. The belief that Iran will ultimately be restrained overlooks the country’s resilience and the fact that economic wars frequently strengthen state resistance rather than reduce it.
Furthermore, sanctions primarily affect civilians and have minimal impact on government policy changes. Iranian households face challenges due to inflation, medical shortages and various difficulties while the government continues to operate. If the US had really aimed to truly support the Iranian people, it would take part in honest negotiations rather than relying on financial suffocation.
The true source of local instability
The work also implies that Iran needs to decide on disarmament and military conflict, suggesting that continued resistance could lead to attacks on its nuclear sites.
If the goal is to stabilize West Asia, then Iran’s nuclear initiative is not a major concern. That’s the military involvement in the West and the support of dictatorial governments.
The dangers posed by Iran’s nuclear initiative are not rooted in security concerns. They focus on maintaining our military superiority and Israel. The very group that Iran claims to abandon its weapons is itself equipped with nuclear weapons and sophisticated military technology. Communication is easy. Nuclear weapons are acceptable to US allies, but not to countries oppose US rule.
Iran consistently demonstrates that it is ready to take part in the debate, but it does not add to the agreement that requires it to surrender completely without replacing it and offering nothing.
Instead of repeating historical errors, the US should allow diplomacy to demand mutual respect rather than threats. Only then can a truly fair and lasting agreement be achieved.