H -°, L 23° | Tomorrow: 
H 23°, L 9°So, negotiations work! Who would have thought?
Germany, the United Kingdom and France are currently holding talks with Iran over that country’s nuclear program. A tentative agreement has been reached, and a more comprehensive one appears to be in the works. The agreement is expected to include Iran’s suspension of its uranium enrichment program in exchange for trade deals and the ability to buy nuclear fuel from the European Union.
For a long time, the United States has maintained a “tough-talk-no-negotiation” diplomacy towards Iran. Not only is this diplomacy expectedly a failure, variations of it have already proven as such. Viewing the various scenarios in dealing with members of George Bush’s “axis of evil” one can see the extent of damage such diplomacy, or lack thereof, has caused.
In the case of North Korea, the United States has maintained a hostile position. This is widely believed to have accelerated that country’s efforts toward having nuclear weapons. Now the United States is in position of having to appease the North Koreans, as they can harm the United States.
In the case of Iraq, the United States took to using force rather rapidly. Iraq’s WMDs, the pretext for war, are nowhere to be found, and it is confidently thought that they did not even exist for years prior to the war. The result is the near complete destruction of a large country’s infrastructure and more than 100,000 civilian casualties and counting.
The condescending approaches the United States has used and the refusal to recognize the opponents as equals have backfired and are likely to do so more pronouncedly if maintained against Iran, a far larger and more powerful country that Iraq or North Korea.
Iran is a signatory of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which grants it the right to possess peaceful nuclear technology. So far, there has been no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, aside from the uranium enrichment program, which, along with being used for weapons, is also the necessary fuel for a nuclear reactor.
If the program is eventually to be used for weapons, it is regarded as a golden shield, rather than a golden bullet. Iran has never started an attack on the United States, and the sentiment on the streets of Tehran is that Iran would never be the initiator of nuclear confrontation.
On the contrary, the United States has a history of hostility toward Iran. Among other incidents, the United States Navy downed an Iranian civilian airplane in the summer of ‘88, killing 290 passengers. The United States also allied with Saddam Hussein and supplied him with weapons throughout his war with Iran.
Irrespective of their views of the governing regime, Iranians stand largely in support of their country’s nuclear program. The attitude is, “If the United States, United Kingdom and Israel can have it, why can’t we?” Many Iranians believe the United States is looking for an opportunity to attack them, and observing the situation in neighboring Iraq only enforces such perceptions. Israel (who refuses to sign the nonproliferation treaty) has also stated repeatedly its desire to launch an attack against Iran’s facilities. Given that it has launched attacks into Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, it is clear that Iran’s ability to retaliate has so far prevented such attacks, an argument that is often used as a reminder to why Iran needs to remain strong and acquire competitive power.
Iranians, whose support and endorsement of the nuke program is rivaling that of the 1950s in support of nationalizing the oil industry in the face of external exploitation, resent the EU’s proposal to provide Iran with nuclear fuel in exchange for abandoning the technology enrich uranium and make the fuel, a move widely seen as an attempt to preempt Iran’s technological independence of the west.
Nuclear races and militarism in the Middle East are dangerous to the future of the region. Military imbalance and the presence of one superpower without accountability, however, is far more dangerous and detrimental, even in the short term.
Demilitarizing the Middle East must be balanced, and different parties need to give up equivalent levels of destructive technology. The best way to talk Iran into giving up a nuclear program is through bringing Israel to sign the nonproliferation treaty and requiring it to dismantle its nuclear warheads, accompanied by guarantees of no United States military aggression against Iran, but this step may have to wait until an administration is in power that recognizes international law.
Fayyad Sbaihat ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in chemical engineering.
IP hash: d17cafde
Yeah, Iran really needs nuclear power plants, since it doesn’t have any oil or anything.
IP hash: 97c10822
Fayyad, the day Iran stops supporting terrorists will be the day the West actually starts to care. Last I checked, Hell hasn’t froze over.
IP hash: 22906c3b
Yeah, negotiation really works. Until Iran decides they don’t like the terms anymore and violates their agreements, as they have done repeatedly. That’s a common tactic used by Islamofascist regimes throughout the Middle East.
IP hash: d17cafde
I’m in such a good mood today that I can’t even get upset about Sbaihat’s usual shilling for genocidal savages.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some candy to pass out. ULULULULULULULU!
IP hash: 4a068bc9
Didn’t Jimmy Carter get the Nobel Peace prize for the negotioations which led to North Korea promising not to develop a-bombs?
Do you actually think that Iran will keep any promises?
“Iran has never started an attack on the United States”
WTF? So that thing with the embassy hostages during Jimmy’s time was good diplomacy and represented “an administration is in power that recognizes international law”?
IP hash: ad230ca4
Speechless…the absolute insanity of everything you write just makes me wonder if you understand how “gone” you sound?
IP hash: 921d63d9
Actually, Sbaihat is right, we hardly give diplomacy a chance. Obviously the tough talk with Korea bit us in the ass, and the invation of Iraq, is becoming another unjustifiable Vietnam, so let’s be at least smart enough to think about a new approach.
IP hash: 921d63d9
OH, BS, why do we let this guy write, no one agrees with him anyway…
IP hash: 921d63d9
Well, what would be the point of writing something you agree with, is that your idea of journalism? It’s already a bad thing of you have wrong views, but it’s even worse if you are closed and opposed to hearing new ones.
IP hash: 6f6ed7dc
“OH, BS, why do we let this guy write, no one agrees with him anyway…”
And yet the rumor is that he wants to bring his terrorist pals to our campus next year for the next PSM terrorist meeting.
IP hash: bdc961d9
What, Who’s coming to campus?
IP hash: bdc961d9
What, Who’s coming to campus? Where did you get that?
IP hash: 6f6ed7dc
PSM — the Palestine Solidarity Movement. There’s a rumor that they want to have their annual conference next year here on our campus. This is the group that met at the University of Michigan two years ago and chanted “Kill the Jews.” Last year when they met at Rutgers, swastikas were painted on campus buildings, including the Hillel and a Jewish fraternity. PSM has consistently supported suicide bombings and is closely affiliated with the International Solidarity Movement, which is known to have assisted at least two suicide bombers in sneaking through Israeli security in order to get to their targets and murder innocent people.
A friend of mine sent me a few things indicating that the poster who said they were coming here is right. There’s a petition against it already:
http://www.petitiononline.com/stopPSM/petition.html
Some people have been contacting Chancellor Wiley’s office in protest. Here’s the standard reply they get:
“Thank you for your email to Chancellor John Wiley. Though the university has received many emails on this topic, we have not been approached or granted any request to host the 2005 Palestinian Solidarity Movement conference.
If such a request is ever received (with a registered UW-Madison organization as its sponsor), it will be reviewed and evaluated based on its conformity with existing UW-Madison and UW System facilities use policies.
John Lucas
John Lucas University Communications University of Wisconsin-Madison 608/262-8287 [email protected]”
IP hash: 6f6ed7dc
It would make sense for PSM to try to come here. Fayyad is one of their national spokespeople.
IP hash: 6bebfbde
So, what do we know about this Fayyad guy? Who is he working with? What are they doing? Who’s combating them?
IP hash: 1bf44736
excellent, well-thought out article
IP hash: 2ef17f91
Sbaihat is a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine as are both his brothers Mohammed and Layth near Jenin. Write the FBI and demand he be deported.PFLP is a terrorist organization per the US State Department and was responsible for terrorist attacks in Israel such as the Lod Airport red Army attack. Ask homeland security why he is running around…
IP hash: ce273503
Sbaihat is an interesting character, not least because this is the third academic year during which he has described himself as a "senior majoring in chemical engineering" in his Wisconsin Badger Herald column. This raises the interesting possibility that, with sympathetic editors, a political activist could embark on a permanent career as an "undergraduate" newspaper columnist.
Sbaihat regularly pens anti-Semitic articles. In one, posted by the Twin Cities Independent Media Center on Feb. 13, 2004, he describes Neo-conservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Douglass Feith, Richard Perle, and Bill Kristol, this way. "Former Pro Israel lobbyists… attempting to assume control of U.S. Policy to fight Israel's wars and reshape the Middle East on its behalf."
http://twincities.indymedia.org/newswire/display/15879/index.php
In others he employs exaggerated rhetoric that tends to demonize Israelis and Jews. Writing, for example, about how "Israel slaughters the Palestinian population." (http://www.badgerherald.com/oped/2004/10/21/inexcusablemuslims.php) Or accusing Prime Minister Sharon of deviously desiring bloodshed: "The bombing in Jerusalem was an expected and desired (by Sharon) outcome of the Gaza incursion, and the emerging fact is Sharon will soon have as much Israeli blood on his hands as he does Palestinian." (http://www.badgerherald.com/oped/2004/01/30/bombinginjerusalem.php)
The "student" organization that Sbaihat runs at Wisconsin is Al Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition. Like the Palestine Solidarity Movement, Al Awda supports the terrorism of the intifada and works to eliminate Israel and replace it with a Muslim state. http://www.adl.org/Israel/israelprotestcalendar_groups.asp#1
Unsurprisingly, Sbaihat opposed the Geneva Accords, on the grounds that they accepted the right of "the Israeli polity as a 'Jewish State'" to exist. http://www.antiimperialista.com/view.shtml?category=9&id=1073414247&keyword=+
IP hash: 8e19ef91
Homeland security knows that Sbaihat is a member of the PFLP. Write them and demand his deportation.