Iran’s Nuclear Diplomacy – Not The Same For United States

Iran’s recent nuclear deal swap involving Turkey and Brazil certainly angered several powerhouses namely Iran’s longtime friend, Russia and also the country who had made a similar proposal for such a deal, United States.

One might perhaps question why the need to be angry when the United States had made a similar offer to exchange low-enriched uranium (LEU) from Iran for nuclear fuel albeit with a different country. A deal so similar, yet had very contrasting responses.

Surely, such diplomacy by Iran didn’t sit well with United States and Russia as well as China who are now pushing for further United Nations (UN) sanctions because such an exchange didn’t benefit either of these countries and certainly didn’t address Israel’s fear. Truly contradicting especially with Russia and China as they had long opposed United States backed sanctions over Iran on its nuclear activities and had preferred to settle the issue through diplomacy.

But surely, Ahmadinejad’s refusal to accept the deal offered by United States and instead, sign a deal with Turkey and Brazil had more than just diplomacy to quell international fears over their nuclear activities. What could be the reason Iran had opted for a deal with Turkey and Brazil?

It couldn’t have been that much harder to figure because by making a deal with it’s other neighbour, Turkey, Iran had angered its bigger neighbour who had been supplying weapons to it, Russia. Reason that I can think of is clear, any deal forged directly with the United States is only a means to appease Israel who has tremendous concerns about Iran’s nuclear activities. And anyone who knows Israel well enough should know that they control the decisions that United States makes in relation to Middle-Eastern policies – which means that a United States decision in the Middle-East, is actually an Israeli biased decision.

Therefore, that comes to the deal offered by the United States.

I’m sure that had it not been United States who made the offer, Iran would have long accepted the deal. Iran had merely rejected the deal to anger Israel because to succumb to a Israel/ United States deal also means submitting to the devil which was perhaps in all cases true in this situation because even though a similar deal was reached by diplomacy with Turkey and Brazil, United States is still pushing for sanctions. It is only unfortunate that Russia and China are unhappy about it but I’m sure they’ll come to see the light in due time.

Russia, as Iran’s longtime friend is badly affected by this deal because it will mean that pipes will not be travelling to their country but heading across the other border. United States is unhappy because Israel is unhappy that they will not be able to track closely the nuclear activities and will not be able to have control over the LEUs that will be transferred. As you probably know, they would probably have scientists ready to take samples from Iran’s LEU and run tests on them to see how they were actually developed and what their capabilities are. This will give significant information to Israel and United States about the level of technology that Iran possesses. It will also give United States and Israel the upperhand over Iran when they have control over the LEUs because they can refuse to give it back to Iran should Iran not cooperate with them on a number of issues and perhaps confiscate the LEUs or return them in the same state as they were given. Basically, not honouring the agreements.

We all know what the United States and Israel are capable of.
(Think of 9/11, Iraq War, Israel-Palestinian Conflict)

I’m just proud of what Ahmadinejad has done because clearly, by not playing to the tune of United States and Israel but yet achieving the same outcome that has been intended for through diplomacy, he has proven that there are countries supporting Iran’s stance and this gives Iran a leverage in the international community. Surely, an imbalance shift of power in the Middle-East is also crucial to ensure that Israel stops its repressive stance towards Palestine and all the other Arab states.

“We must expel Arabs and take their places.”
— David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

“There is no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.”
— Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

“If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force….”
— Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.

“It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.”
— Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

“Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours…Everything we don’t grab will go to them.”
— Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

“Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.”
— Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online