It was a good news coming from Geneva on Sunday. It proved that Europe as a whole could play a great role in bringing peace, especially when it was united under the EU Foreign Minister. It proved that the US should hereafter restrain herself in international negotiations as her role, even under Obama, had very much her own and the Israeli interests in mind. And it proved that Iran, under the current President and the Foreign Minister, had persevered a lot for the sake of reaching an agreement with the West.
Indeed, the Iranians, if not Iran as a state, persevered for exactly 60 years, as Prime Minister Musaddiq was pulled down by an Anglo-American sponsored coup in 1953. They were left with no other means to express themselves but Islamism. Then the war forced by Iraq. And on both sides of the country, in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were huge US forces, in a position to attack Iran if necessary in their eyes, almost an unprecedented phenomenon in modern history. But they stuck to peace somehow, and succeeded.
I am not saying that Iran as a state had a clean record all the time. She should not crossed the Iraqi border. It is a matter of regret that she, and the world, missed an opportunity of coming to an agreement much earlier which was torpedoed by the former President. And she should refrain from aiding some elements in the Middle East today from the wider perspective of peace in the region.
Still, I was startled by the sharply pro-Israeli stance of not only the US President and his Secretary of State, but of the Western media. One day, when the conference was in recess in the middle of November, one of such media was talking to a White House official. The media person said things like, is it possible to come to an agreement with a new President who has been in office for just two months, or the sanctions are telling on the Iranians so is it not better to negotiate after the sanctions continue for some more time? The inflation rate in Iran is 40% and it is really telling on the life of the people in humanitarian proportions. There is not even a word on the hawks in Israel who may have been on the look-out for a military attack on Iran in case of a failure. Even otherwise they called it 'a bad deal, a dangerous deal'.
Even those who are not friendly-disposed toward Iran should take notice of the fact that the idea of peace has fast filtered into the people of Iran by the process of reaching an agreement this time. They may also do well to note that, though Iran as a state may not be called democratic as yet, the peace of the region should rely on the civil society there who has been responsible for electing the new President.
Indeed, the Iranians, if not Iran as a state, persevered for exactly 60 years, as Prime Minister Musaddiq was pulled down by an Anglo-American sponsored coup in 1953. They were left with no other means to express themselves but Islamism. Then the war forced by Iraq. And on both sides of the country, in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were huge US forces, in a position to attack Iran if necessary in their eyes, almost an unprecedented phenomenon in modern history. But they stuck to peace somehow, and succeeded.
I am not saying that Iran as a state had a clean record all the time. She should not crossed the Iraqi border. It is a matter of regret that she, and the world, missed an opportunity of coming to an agreement much earlier which was torpedoed by the former President. And she should refrain from aiding some elements in the Middle East today from the wider perspective of peace in the region.
Still, I was startled by the sharply pro-Israeli stance of not only the US President and his Secretary of State, but of the Western media. One day, when the conference was in recess in the middle of November, one of such media was talking to a White House official. The media person said things like, is it possible to come to an agreement with a new President who has been in office for just two months, or the sanctions are telling on the Iranians so is it not better to negotiate after the sanctions continue for some more time? The inflation rate in Iran is 40% and it is really telling on the life of the people in humanitarian proportions. There is not even a word on the hawks in Israel who may have been on the look-out for a military attack on Iran in case of a failure. Even otherwise they called it 'a bad deal, a dangerous deal'.
Even those who are not friendly-disposed toward Iran should take notice of the fact that the idea of peace has fast filtered into the people of Iran by the process of reaching an agreement this time. They may also do well to note that, though Iran as a state may not be called democratic as yet, the peace of the region should rely on the civil society there who has been responsible for electing the new President.
No comments:
Post a Comment