A Victory for Peaceful Imperialism: On the Nuclear Deal with Iran

Believing that Western powers had a right and duty to force Iran to the negotiating table reflects the assumption that so many of us have taken for granted - that Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons.  Once we relax this assumption (through a willingness to question "evidence" produced by Mossad or terrorist groups), it becomes easier to see the nuclear talks for what they appear to be: an audacious - and successful - effort to bully Iran into dramatically scaling back its civilian nuclear program.  

So, while I celebrate the agreement with Iran, it's because I'm forced to choose between peaceful and militaristic imperialism, and not because it frustrates Iran's supposed efforts to acquire the bomb (as the agreement is normally portrayed).  

Nevertheless, I may not celebrate for long, given congressional efforts to thwart the deal, the possibility that a president who prefers militarism over President Obama's peaceful imperialism will be elected in 2016, or the chance that a baseless accusation of Iranian non-compliance will be made (wouldn't this be a perfect pretext for aggression?).


photo credit: Secretary Kerry Sits with German, Chinese, European Union, French, British, and Russian Colleagues Before P5+1 Coordinating Meeting Amid Iranian Nuclear Negotiations in Switzerland via photopin (license)

Why Human Rights Shouldn’t Get in the Way: Thoughts on Nuclear Talks with Iran

Always at the right time, it seems, we are reminded of Iran’s deplorable human rights record.  Just as the P5+1 and Iran are approaching the deadline to conclude negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, our attention is to drawn to the innumerable violations committed there.  One particular story in Newsweek reported that:

[Iranian-] Arab and father of two Younes al-Asakirah, 34, died last Sunday as a result of his burns, which he received when he set himself ablaze to protest against the government who had confiscated his fruit and vegetable stall earlier in March.  The authorities were reportedly clearing away unlicensed stalls in preparation for state-organised tours which will bring visitors from other provinces to the city of Khorramshahr…to show them the destruction caused by the 1980s Iraq-Iran war.

This story, which was accompanied by a graphic image of al-Askirah’s burned body, left such an impression on my fellow Iranian-American friend that he made the following well-intentioned remark on Facebook:

If your Iranian friends aren't sharing stories like this, they're either clueless, trying desperately to show Iran in a positive light, or racists who hate Iran's Arab minority...

Response from a Representative

Earlier this week I contacted my representative in order to express my opposition to House Resolution 568, which would essentially facilitate a military strike against Iran (ostensibly in response to its alleged nuclear weapons program). Although I was thankful to get a prompt response from him, I was so disappointed to see an elected member of Congress use such baseless, hostile rhetoric. To address just one of his statements:

"A nation such as Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would present an unimaginable threat to the United States..."

This statement creates the impression that Iran is in fact seeking nuclear weapons - a claim that even Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, appears reluctant to make. Indeed, the Obama Administration recently and subtly changed its rhetoric from opposing Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons to opposing its goal of acquiring nuclear weapons capability (translation: civilian nuclear power, the pursuit of which cannot be publicly condemned, as it is perfectly legal under international law).