Rights and Stupidities: Why Would Iran's Disputed Election Justify Dismissing an International Treaty?

Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 11:28 AM on June 15, 2009.

Sometimes the best way to expose the incoherence of a foreign policy argument is to simply identify a parallel in the domestic sphere.

On Foreign Policy's blog, David Rothkopf argues that if you have a binding contract with someone, and that person breaks a wholly unrelated contract with another party -- something that has nothing to do with you -- then you are, in turn, fully justified in violating the terms of the agreement you have with that person. Ridiculous notion, yes, but this is the foreign policy realm, where such assertions are made with some frequency.

The rights of Iranians vs. Iran's "right" to enrich nuclear materials

At the very least, Iran's election results are under a cloud. But evidence certainly seems to be mounting that there was considerable intimidation, systematic efforts to quash the ability of the opposition campaign to spread its message in the days prior to the election, and likely voter fraud. Further, President Ahmadinejad certainly didn't do anything to help his already shredded credibility with his nonsensical Sunday news conference in which among other things he asserted Iranians weren't divided by the election while violent clashes took place in the streets.

These circumstances raise an important question. Given the apparent disregard for the rights of its own citizens exhibited by the Iranian regime, will the Obama administration rethink its stance vis á vis the Iranians?

The prevailing U.S. view, articulated by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair John Kerry last week, is that the Iranians have a "right" to uranium enrichment.

Scare quotes around the word "right" notwithstanding, this isn't just the "prevailing U.S. view," it's spelled out explicitly in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, an international agreement ratified by the U.S. Congress and thus the law of the land. But for Rothkopf, the law is apparently fungible, as long as we're talking about a regime he doesn't like.

He continues ...

Will we continue to honor such a supposed right now? The hopes of many reasonable Americans has long been that it would be possible to establish a dialogue with Iran given the country's diversity of opinions and its cosmopolitan traditions. But when democracy is seemingly crushed or at the very least undermined, the government defines itself by the degree to which it does not reflect the views of its citizens. Since governments rather than general populations control nuclear programs, shouldn't the recent events give us reason to reconsider our recent drift toward acceptance of Iran's nuclear aspirations?

That's a rhetorical question. Of course it should. We should not acknowledge international "rights" of countries that deny fundamental rights to their people.

Actually, that's a logical fallacy known as 'begging the question.'

The whole column is best summarized with this handy graphic (with thanks to Brad Reed): 

But odder still is that Rothkopf is tying his argument about nukes to Iranian democracy, when an overwhelming majority of Iranians from across the political spectrum feel very strongly that the U.S. and its allies are denying their country something -- a (civilian) nuclear program -- that Iran is well within its rights to possess.

Here's Hooman Majd, a person who actually understands Iranian culture, explaining that which Rothkopf fails to grasp:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had counted on [Iranians'] definition of freedom, or really on the Iranian preoccupation with rights, or haq, which define that freedom, in his campaign for president in 2005 ...

Iranians, who've had no history and, until the age of communication, barely a knowledge of Western liberal democracy, do not necessarily equate their rights with democracy as we know it. In almost every noisy public demonstration in recent years, whether it be trade unionists demanding better pay as their right (as teachers and bus drivers have done) or the general public protesting gas prices or rationing (objecting to the infringement on their right to cheap fuel, for Iranians believe that the oil under their country's ground belongs to the people), issues such as free speech, social freedoms, and even democratic elections have taken a backseat...

The reason Iranians, even those most opposed to their government, seem to support their country's nuclear program, despite the hardships that they may have to endure in order for it to achieve success, is put forward by many analysts as pure, fierce nationalism and excessive Persian pride, as if Iranians have rejoiced in their scientists' ability to overcome technological hurdles as much as their presidents and other leaders have seemed to. To accept that conclusion is a mistake that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Iranian psyche and of Iranian society. Iranians are indeed proud, sometimes to the point of arrogance, but pride is not what is driving the nuclear issue as far as the majority of Iranians are concerned. No, the nuclear issue is another matter of haq, basic rights that deeply resonate for a Shia people that has long suffered from inferiority and superiority complexes, often simultaneously.

In other words, it would be a hell of a lot easier to get Tehran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program if people stopped telling the Iranians that they have no right to pursue it.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.