Threatening Iran is a hindrance to nuclear talks: Jack Straw

TEHRAN,Feb.27(MNA) – Former British foreign secretary Jack Straw, in an article published in the Telegraph on Monday said that threatening Iran with military action over its nuclear program is a hindrance to the process of talks between Iran and world powers meant to resolve the country’s nuclear issue. Following are excerpts of the article: “All options remain on the table”, goes the mantra. This is code for saying that the West retains the choice of using military force to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. We’ll hear it repeated this week, as negotiations between Iran and the “P5 +1” (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and Germany) resume in Kazakhstan. On occasions, I’ve used the phrase myself. But the more I’ve thought about it, the more I’ve become convinced that it is a hindrance to negotiations, rather than a help. If Iran were to attack Israel, or, say, one of its Arab neighbors, international law is clear: the victim has the right to retaliate. But such an attack is highly improbable. Under Article 42 of the UN Charter, the Security Council can authorize military action where there’s a “threat to international peace and security”. Such resolutions were the legal basis for the actions against Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and Libya in 2011. But there are no such Article 42 resolutions against Iran; and there won’t be – China and Russia would veto them. There are Security Council resolutions against Iran under Article 41, but this Article explicitly excludes measures involving the use of force. These resolutions have progressively tightened international sanctions against Iran, because of its (alleged) lack of full co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). With even tougher measures imposed by the U.S. and the EU, sanctions have restricted Iran’s international trade. The negotiations which restart(ed) on Tuesday are the latest round of a 10-year effort by (some Western countries) to satisfy (themselves) that Iran is not embarked on a nuclear weapons program. Resolving the current impasse will require statesmanship of a high order from both sides. From the West, there has to be a better understanding of the Iranian psyche. Transcending their political divisions, Iranians have a strong and shared sense of national identity, and a yearning to be treated with respect. “Kar Inglise” – that “the hand of England” is behind whatever befalls the Iranians – is a popular Persian saying. Few in the UK have the remotest idea of our active interference in Iran’s internal affairs from the 19th century on, but the Iranians can recite every detail. From an oppressive British tobacco monopoly in 1890, through truly extortionate terms for the extraction of oil by the D’Arcy petroleum company (later BP), to putting Reza Shah on the throne in the 1920s; from jointly occupying the country, with the Soviet Union, from 1941-46, organizing (with the CIA) the coup to remove the prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, then propping up the increasingly brutal regime of the Shah until its collapse in 1979, our role has not been a pretty one. Think how we’d feel if it had been the other way round. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Iranian president Mohammad Khatami reached out to the United States, promising active co-operation against al-Qaeda and the Taliban – and, in the initial months, delivering that. His “reward” was for Iran to be lumped in with Iraq and North Korea as part of the “axis of evil” by President Bush in January 2002, a serious error by the U.S. which severely weakened the moderates around Khatami. What Iran seeks is twofold. First, it wants its “full rights” under the NPT for civil nuclear power. Second, it seeks an end to (efforts meant to pressure the country) and a recognition of its regional status. Normalization of relations with Iran is also an important prize for the international community. It has a considerable capacity to (change) conditions in its unstable neighbors – Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, the Occupied Territories, the Persian Gulf states, and Afghanistan. An early priority for the UK should be the reopening of the embassies in Tehran and London. There has been no more belligerent cheerleader for the war party against Iran than Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. Netanyahu was widely expected to strengthen his position in the January elections for the Israeli parliament, but lost close to a third of his seats. The electorate seemed to take more heed of real experts such as Meir Dagan, a former head of Mossad, Israel’s external intelligence agency, and Yuval Diskin, a former chief of Shin Bet, its internal security agency. In 2011, Dagan described an Israeli attack on Iran as a “stupid idea”. More significantly, both Dagan and Diskin have questioned the utility of any strike on Iran. These hard-boiled former heads of the Israeli intelligence agencies are right. War is not an option.