The Iranian threat to peace and security, stressed by his speech and terrorist activity in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, together with its accelerated moves to acquire a nuclear weapon, led to analysts and experts to debate likely solutions to address this threat.
The policy suggestions arising from this debate is generally useful to awaken the world to the reality of the threat of Iran and a search for a good policy.
Among these policy formulations, however, there are those who while abhorring the Iranian Government and expressing its concern over a likely war, they tend to strengthen the regime in fact lay the groundwork for an ominous war.
The report of March of Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs) in Great Britain called 'Israel and Iran, war of words, words of war' is an example.
The report considers an attack on Iran, the most desirable option against the Islamic Republic and says that the most obvious consequence of such action is instability throughout the Middle East and the greatest danger to Israel.
There is no doubt that an attack on Iran by Israel or United States is an undesirable option, and is not a solution to the threat from Tehran.
The conclusion of the report, however, worth contemplating.
The report presents the Iran nuclear threat as too distant; It proposes that the theocracy in Iran is negotiable; hang the foreign investment as an incentive Iran to help the Islamic Republic to meet its critical economic situation; and encouraged to use the resumption of diplomatic dialogue with the United States after more than 28 years as a decoy incentive regime.
However, the Chatham House report fails in the understanding of a number of essential realities on the current Iranian regime.
It ignores the failed policy of four years of negotiations by three of the major European powers to convince Iran to renounce its quest for nuclear weapons. Hassan Rowhani, the Chief Iranian negotiator at the time, has frequently boasted that Iran benefited from four years to complete the construction of its nuclear facilities.
The Chatham House report ignores the UN Security Council has requested in resolution 1737 for the termination of enrichment of uranium as an essential demand. Ignoring this demand, author of the report proposes giving Tehran the granting of the negotiations.
Vale remember that Iran shrugged off the P5 generous incentive package + 1 in October 2006. Package includes the recognition of the right of Iran to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, accepted Iranian Arak heavy water facilities, said to provide nuclear fuel to Iran, supported Iran request to join the World Trade Organization, gave Iran the possibility of purchasing parts for the aerospace industry and offers security guarantees to preserve the current political regime in Iran.
The Chatham House report ignores that, in reality, the Iranian regime is waging a bloody and horrible war of savage terrorism in Iraq to dominate the country. Tehran is also a huge arsenal of missiles in the Lebanon to pave the way for the control of Hezbollah of the Lebanon policy.
The Chatham House report ignores the fact very obvious that the Iranian regime has suppressed the Iranian for over 25 years people and has a history very horrible in human rights in Iran and he has already been sentenced more than 51 times by various bodies of the United Nations to the flagrant violation of human rights.
The report is based on a series of statements that have no basis in reality. For example, it is not clear on what basis, the author concludes that "the Iranian social and political structures leave enough space to encourage Iranian compliance with the international standards".
It seems only prudent to base conclusions on Iran history and their past and current behavior. Iran has been sending sophisticated bombs to Iraq responsible for the deaths of hundreds of coalition soldiers, is behind the deaths of British soldiers in the South of Iraq, and has been fanning sectarian violence with the aim of preventing the stabilization of Iraq in order to oust the coalition and dominate the country through their representatives.
The report says that United States has admitted that the intelligence is weak in the intentions of Iran and the development of its nuclear program. The existing information indicates otherwise. One may refer to the intelligence us national estimate that in no way makes an acknowledgement of receipt. On the other hand, clearly mentions that Tehran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons and continues to enrich uranium.
While expressing its concern at the consequences of a new war, the Chatham House report calls for the continuation of a policy of appeasement with Iran given the opportunity to pursue nuclear weapons without concern and to control a vital region in the Middle East to theocratic rulers of that country. Such a political suggestion is a recipe for the escalation of the current international crisis with Iran in a short war.
The fact is that any solution to the current crisis, must necessarily recognize the Iran ruling regime is the main problem and the only way to avoid a foreign war is to allow the internal process of regime change by the Iranian people to take its course. The necessary consequence of course would be to stop impeding the movement of opposition to the clergy ruling in Iran and motivations of the main group of the Iranian opposition, WIPO, on the EU terror list, that it was the result of a failed appeasement policy. The European Court of first instance has ruled to this effect and the political leadership of the EU should recognize as much and show their respect for the rule of law.
Joseph Omidvar is a researcher in Iranian Affairs and an editor for the International Committee of study for the change on the website of Iran ([http://www.iraniscc.com])
Joseph Omidvar is a researcher in Iranian Affairs and an editor for the International Committee of study for the change in Iran: [http://www.iraniscc.com]