Hossein Mousavian.
Dec 06, 2012
A former spokesman for Iran's nuclear negotiators gives "Ten Reasons Iran Doesn't Want the Bomb" and writes that the West should stop its ineffective sanctions against Iran and pursue a "genuine solution."
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, now a research scholar at Princeton, made his case in an article published Tuesday in the foreign policy journal National Interest.
Mousavian writes that an Iranian pursuit of a nuclear bomb would offer no long-term advantage to the nation, but would instead "trigger a regional nuclear arms race, bringing Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia into the fold sooner or later."
It would also further isolate Iran, according to Mousavian, and "would give the Israelis ample ammunition to rally the United States and the international community on a perceived existential threat to its existence for creating another war in the Middle East."
Mousavian also charges that accusations Iran would use a nuclear bomb against Israel or the US make "no rational sense, since any provocation by Iran against two states that possess thousands and hundreds of nuclear weapons respectively would result in Iran's total annihilation."
He concludes:
Tehran would only accept a deal in which the P5+1 recognizes Iran's legitimate rights of enrichment under the NPT and gradually lifts the sanctions. In return, to assuage Western worries, Iran would operationalize Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa banning nuclear arms, implement the Additional Protocol and the Subsidiary Arrangements (Code 3.1), and cooperate with the IAEA to resolve technical ambiguities and its worries about possible military dimensions. It would also export its enriched uranium stockpile beyond domestic consumption or convert it to fuel rods, cap enrichment at 5 percent, and establish a multilateral consortium for enrichment in Iran.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Our Summer Campaign is now underway, and there’s never been a more urgent time for Common Dreams to be as vigilant as possible. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A former spokesman for Iran's nuclear negotiators gives "Ten Reasons Iran Doesn't Want the Bomb" and writes that the West should stop its ineffective sanctions against Iran and pursue a "genuine solution."
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, now a research scholar at Princeton, made his case in an article published Tuesday in the foreign policy journal National Interest.
Mousavian writes that an Iranian pursuit of a nuclear bomb would offer no long-term advantage to the nation, but would instead "trigger a regional nuclear arms race, bringing Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia into the fold sooner or later."
It would also further isolate Iran, according to Mousavian, and "would give the Israelis ample ammunition to rally the United States and the international community on a perceived existential threat to its existence for creating another war in the Middle East."
Mousavian also charges that accusations Iran would use a nuclear bomb against Israel or the US make "no rational sense, since any provocation by Iran against two states that possess thousands and hundreds of nuclear weapons respectively would result in Iran's total annihilation."
He concludes:
Tehran would only accept a deal in which the P5+1 recognizes Iran's legitimate rights of enrichment under the NPT and gradually lifts the sanctions. In return, to assuage Western worries, Iran would operationalize Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa banning nuclear arms, implement the Additional Protocol and the Subsidiary Arrangements (Code 3.1), and cooperate with the IAEA to resolve technical ambiguities and its worries about possible military dimensions. It would also export its enriched uranium stockpile beyond domestic consumption or convert it to fuel rods, cap enrichment at 5 percent, and establish a multilateral consortium for enrichment in Iran.
A former spokesman for Iran's nuclear negotiators gives "Ten Reasons Iran Doesn't Want the Bomb" and writes that the West should stop its ineffective sanctions against Iran and pursue a "genuine solution."
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, now a research scholar at Princeton, made his case in an article published Tuesday in the foreign policy journal National Interest.
Mousavian writes that an Iranian pursuit of a nuclear bomb would offer no long-term advantage to the nation, but would instead "trigger a regional nuclear arms race, bringing Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia into the fold sooner or later."
It would also further isolate Iran, according to Mousavian, and "would give the Israelis ample ammunition to rally the United States and the international community on a perceived existential threat to its existence for creating another war in the Middle East."
Mousavian also charges that accusations Iran would use a nuclear bomb against Israel or the US make "no rational sense, since any provocation by Iran against two states that possess thousands and hundreds of nuclear weapons respectively would result in Iran's total annihilation."
He concludes:
Tehran would only accept a deal in which the P5+1 recognizes Iran's legitimate rights of enrichment under the NPT and gradually lifts the sanctions. In return, to assuage Western worries, Iran would operationalize Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa banning nuclear arms, implement the Additional Protocol and the Subsidiary Arrangements (Code 3.1), and cooperate with the IAEA to resolve technical ambiguities and its worries about possible military dimensions. It would also export its enriched uranium stockpile beyond domestic consumption or convert it to fuel rods, cap enrichment at 5 percent, and establish a multilateral consortium for enrichment in Iran.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.