Commentary recirculates distortions about Iran
The commentary “Three cheers for the flawed Iran deal” (July 16), an article republished from The Financial Times accepts, repeats and recirculates distortions about Iran, its nuclear programme, as well as the Middle East and the conflicts therein.
It suggests that “even with a new, uniquely intrusive inspection regime, Tehran might still press ahead with a clandestine nuclear programme”. It fails to note that there is no credible evidence now of any “clandestine” programme. The word choice allows the sentence to suggest what it cannot prove; by definition, a clandestine programme is secret from us, the Anglophone-reading public.
However, it rides upon the fact that the Anglophone-reading public shares common Islamophobic and Iranophobic assumptions, and will accept the unproven insinuation.
Former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter noted in the London Review of Books that Iran has a “proven track record” of abiding by stringent verification measures and also that “Iran has been put in the impossible position of having to prove a negative”.
His article refers extensively to his experience in Iraq and the Iraq war, which was “based on flawed intelligence and baseless accusations that left many thousands dead and a region in turmoil”.
The Financial Times writer frames current Middle East conflicts in simplistic terms of a Sunni-Shia conflict, with Saudi Arabia and Iran as the main sponsors. For him, “Iran’s destructive ambition is a big part of the story”, while Saudi Arabia is faulted only for having “deep ambivalence” towards “violent Sunni extremism”.
I will say three things. First, he surprisingly considers the relentless Saudi bombardment of Yemen this year as an “ambivalent” attitude.
Second, the Middle East conflicts cannot be understood in terms of religion or sects — alliances are forged across sects and religions, animated by more powerful political motivations.
Third, the dominant side inciting conflicts in the region has been the Saudi-Israeli alliance; Iran had been the underdog.
The Iranian deal is significant because, with Iran reintroduced as a legitimate player in the arena, it heralds a realignment of the power brokers interfering in the region, of whom the most destructive has always been the United States.
ABOUT THE LETTER WRITER:
The writer is a PhD student working on Middle East history at Yale University.
