The Dec. 18 op-ed “The Economic Costs of Nuclear Iran” by Charles Robb, Dennis Ross and Michael Makovsky is a case in point. The authors’ mention of a “Saudi-Iran nuclear exchange” is appalling and a grotesque stretch of imagination. Iran and Saudi Arabia have normal neighborly relations, underpinned by many historic, cultural and religious affinities, and bolstered by a strong relationship between the two nations, leaving no room for such fictitious scenarios as the authors toy with.
In our view such attempts are intent of averting focus on the real threat in the region emanating from the Israelis’ nuclear arsenal and their continued policy of appropriating Palestinian lands.
Such diversionary Iranophobic arguments mean to let Israel off the hook and press the wrong agenda for the U.S. government, which will only harm the U.S.’s own interests in case they are taken seriously.
Iran has always reiterated that its nuclear program is fully for peaceful purposes, and the intensive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections have never revealed anything to the contrary. Last week, Iran and the IAEA made substantial progress on the “structured approach” for future cooperation. The negotiations will continue in mid-January. Iran, as other members of IAEA, enjoys an “inalienable right” to possess a civilian nuclear-fuel cycle under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
A more realistic and constructive approach by the U.S. toward the Iran-Five Plus One talks, based on U.S. national interests and Iran’s efforts to establish the Middle East as a nuclear-weapon-free zone, would to work toward peace and security in the Middle East and beyond.
Alireza Miryousefi is the head of the Press Office of the Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations.
(Source: The Wall Street Journal)