Facing a New War
I love carnival parades, but the real subject of the moment is very serious and heavy for the festival season.
I am speaking of the new threat of war in the Middle East. On the basis that Iran must not construct a subterranean nuclear power station, which would become an atomic arsenal immune to the attacks of Israel, the government of Tel Aviv is pressuring the U.S. to carry out an attack in the coming months.
The time frame would be summer in the Northern Hemisphere, which begins in June and ends in September. Politically, it would be a way to blackmail Barack Obama in the middle of his electoral campaign, where he is accused by Republicans of being a weak president.
The majority of analysts believe that, if Israel takes the initiative right now, Obama will have difficulty refusing to help Tel Aviv.
The reason is not humanitarian, but electoral. In a country where private campaign contributions are the most abundant on the planet, pro-Israel lobbyists possess an efficient and powerful organization, with more power to influence than the unions and surpassed only by arms manufacturers. For decades, there has not been a single voting result in Congress contrary to the interests of Israel.
A decade after George Bush's disastrous war in Iraq, the plan is a war against the regime of the Ayatollahs.
Does this make sense? I don't think so.
The human experience teaches that all peoples have a right to existence and sovereignty. When these rights are not respected, we get war and barbarity.
Although the situation is serious, the reaction by doves is weak, as if most observers were already convinced that a war is inevitable. From time to time, here and there, there are appeals in favor of a negotiation for peace.
Two years ago, when the governments of Brazil and Turkey tried to make a treaty with Iran, prompted initially by the White House, the initiative was treated as folklore by observers aligned with the external policy of Israel. The critics were wrong, say some experts.
An influential voice in progressive circles in Washington, the economist Mark Weisbrot looked back in an article published at the beginning of January, "When Brazil, together with Turkey, proposed a nuclear fuel swap arrangement for Iran in May of 2010, it temporarily put a dent in the armor of the war machine. We need more of this kind of diplomatic help."
In an interview with Robert Simon, published in today's Estadão, Anne-Marie Slaughter, who is an advisor to Barack Obama, defends the idea that Brazil and Turkey reopen conversations with Tehran. She believes that Brazil, which has a nuclear program with peaceful goals, can offer an honorable exit to Iran.
The negotiation for peace has an awkward side. It implies convincing the government of Iran to renounce nuclear weapons — but it does not demand the same of Israel. It is a complicating factor, equivalent to asking the government of the Ayatollahs to assume a subordinate position to another country.
Anne-Marie Slaughter is right to remember the peaceful nature of the Brazilian nuclear program. But it is necessary to understand the entire lesson.
For years, Brazil supported nuclear research that could lead to the construction of a bomb. On the other side of the border, Argentina was doing the same thing. Today, this is no longer the case.
But this was only possible because the Brazilians and Argentinians made a common treaty, by which Brasilia and Buenos Aires committed to dismantling their respective arsenals, authorized mutual inspections and offered all types of guarantees to the neighboring country. It was not by accident that this peace accord made up part of the negotiations behind the Common Southern Market, which reinforced economic integration and cooperation between the countries.
Israel rejects any reciprocity clause, with the argument that it cannot give up the right to defend itself by any means.
It is curious, because the government of Iran can, in this case, say the same thing, don't you agree?
And given that, how can peace be reached?
It is difficult. Its price includes obliging Iran to assume a humiliating position, a thing that no government likes to do — much less a regime which was constructed, three decades ago, with the promise to restore national pride, corroded by the pro-Western monarchy of Shah Reza Pahlevi.
That situation helps us understand why the nuclear program is, however, the only cause that unites all sides in Iran. This means that even if it were possible to depose the government of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad by force of arms, his successors would hardly be in a position to carry out the policy that the Israelis and Americans want.
Another side concerns concessions that could be made to Iran to convince them to change course, even to an unfavorable situation. The classic expedient would be to negotiate benefits and concessions which could foster development in the country.
But no. Until now, the only weapon has been the application of sanctions to suffocate the economy and daily lives of the citizens.
Does anyone think this is a good way to get Iran to sit down at the table and negotiate?
I am speaking of the new threat of war in the Middle East. On the basis that Iran must not construct a subterranean nuclear power station, which would become an atomic arsenal immune to the attacks of Israel, the government of Tel Aviv is pressuring the U.S. to carry out an attack in the coming months.
The time frame would be summer in the Northern Hemisphere, which begins in June and ends in September. Politically, it would be a way to blackmail Barack Obama in the middle of his electoral campaign, where he is accused by Republicans of being a weak president.
The majority of analysts believe that, if Israel takes the initiative right now, Obama will have difficulty refusing to help Tel Aviv.
The reason is not humanitarian, but electoral. In a country where private campaign contributions are the most abundant on the planet, pro-Israel lobbyists possess an efficient and powerful organization, with more power to influence than the unions and surpassed only by arms manufacturers. For decades, there has not been a single voting result in Congress contrary to the interests of Israel.
A decade after George Bush's disastrous war in Iraq, the plan is a war against the regime of the Ayatollahs.
Does this make sense? I don't think so.
The human experience teaches that all peoples have a right to existence and sovereignty. When these rights are not respected, we get war and barbarity.
Although the situation is serious, the reaction by doves is weak, as if most observers were already convinced that a war is inevitable. From time to time, here and there, there are appeals in favor of a negotiation for peace.
Two years ago, when the governments of Brazil and Turkey tried to make a treaty with Iran, prompted initially by the White House, the initiative was treated as folklore by observers aligned with the external policy of Israel. The critics were wrong, say some experts.
An influential voice in progressive circles in Washington, the economist Mark Weisbrot looked back in an article published at the beginning of January, "When Brazil, together with Turkey, proposed a nuclear fuel swap arrangement for Iran in May of 2010, it temporarily put a dent in the armor of the war machine. We need more of this kind of diplomatic help."
In an interview with Robert Simon, published in today's Estadão, Anne-Marie Slaughter, who is an advisor to Barack Obama, defends the idea that Brazil and Turkey reopen conversations with Tehran. She believes that Brazil, which has a nuclear program with peaceful goals, can offer an honorable exit to Iran.
The negotiation for peace has an awkward side. It implies convincing the government of Iran to renounce nuclear weapons — but it does not demand the same of Israel. It is a complicating factor, equivalent to asking the government of the Ayatollahs to assume a subordinate position to another country.
Anne-Marie Slaughter is right to remember the peaceful nature of the Brazilian nuclear program. But it is necessary to understand the entire lesson.
For years, Brazil supported nuclear research that could lead to the construction of a bomb. On the other side of the border, Argentina was doing the same thing. Today, this is no longer the case.
But this was only possible because the Brazilians and Argentinians made a common treaty, by which Brasilia and Buenos Aires committed to dismantling their respective arsenals, authorized mutual inspections and offered all types of guarantees to the neighboring country. It was not by accident that this peace accord made up part of the negotiations behind the Common Southern Market, which reinforced economic integration and cooperation between the countries.
Israel rejects any reciprocity clause, with the argument that it cannot give up the right to defend itself by any means.
It is curious, because the government of Iran can, in this case, say the same thing, don't you agree?
And given that, how can peace be reached?
It is difficult. Its price includes obliging Iran to assume a humiliating position, a thing that no government likes to do — much less a regime which was constructed, three decades ago, with the promise to restore national pride, corroded by the pro-Western monarchy of Shah Reza Pahlevi.
That situation helps us understand why the nuclear program is, however, the only cause that unites all sides in Iran. This means that even if it were possible to depose the government of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad by force of arms, his successors would hardly be in a position to carry out the policy that the Israelis and Americans want.
Another side concerns concessions that could be made to Iran to convince them to change course, even to an unfavorable situation. The classic expedient would be to negotiate benefits and concessions which could foster development in the country.
But no. Until now, the only weapon has been the application of sanctions to suffocate the economy and daily lives of the citizens.
Does anyone think this is a good way to get Iran to sit down at the table and negotiate?