

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
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.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.