PNN – The Washington Post reported that the only way to ensure a non-nuclear Iran is through negotiations, and the US president knows this.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network, the Washington Post newspaper wrote in a report by Fareed Zakaria that regardless of the impact of the US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the only way to ensure a non-nuclear Iran is still “negotiation.”
According to Zakaria, even assuming severe damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities, most experts I spoke to estimate that these attacks would set back Iran’s nuclear program by one to two years, while the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) would have kept Iran’s nuclear program under control for 10 to 15 years.
Read more:
US and Israeli frustration with Iran; Tel Aviv’s failure to achieve goals
According to the Washington Post, despite all the bragging, aggressive rhetoric, and noise and hyperbole about US attacks, US President Donald Trump seems to understand this and is now calling for diplomacy.
A key issue along this path will be uranium enrichment. Iran says it has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, Israel wants zero enrichment capacity in Iran. The Trump administration initially proposed a regional consortium capable of enriching uranium and, in addition to being subject to monitoring, providing the Iranians with very low-enriched uranium that would not be used for weapons purposes. However, Trump decided to toughen his stance once he saw the effects of the Israeli attack on Iran. But he would do well to consider going back on his previous stance. Most experts I consulted believe that a regional consortium would be practical and safe.
Zakaria wrote that diplomacy leading to an agreement would be another major achievement. Regardless of speculation about Iran’s future intentions, the country has not previously had a nuclear weapons program. U.S. intelligence agencies have repeatedly made this clear, and I have seen no evidence to the contrary. So, the US launched an illegal attack on a sovereign country without the approval of the UN or even Congress. Such a unilateral military action should not be taken lightly. When Washington does such an action, it is easy to celebrate, but how would we feel if China did such an action? What about Russia, a country that has taken such an action in Ukraine?
According to him, the rule-based international order is a mouth-watering, foreign abstract concept that most people don’t think about. But we are experiencing the longest period of peace and stability in modern history among the world’s major countries. This peace and stability has allowed us to build an economy, trade, and a world where nationalistic rivalries do not lead to nuclear war. Unilateral US military strikes could fuel a new kind of chaos in international life, in which other world powers decide to break the law and always claim that they believe such action was right and necessary! They all justify their actions by saying the words of the Vietnamese soldier standing in the ruins: “To save the village, I had to destroy it”!