A couple of weeks ago a tweet from Reza
Marashi, (twitter handle @rezamarashi ), Research Director of the National
Iranian American Council in Washington, broadcast a link to a 2008 Time article based on an interview with Dr Akbar Etemad, who ran
the Iranian nuclear program from its establishment in 1974, under the Shah,
until just before the Shah departed the country in early 1979.
This awakened some strong memories, because I knew Dr Etemad
quite well. He led an Iranian Atomic Energy Commission delegation to Canberra in
about May 1978 to commence negotiation of the nuclear safeguards agreement
which would govern the exports of Australian uranium to Iran. We made good
progress but our stipulation that prior consent would be required Australian uranium
could be enriched, reprocessed or transferred was difficult for most countries
to accept and while the Iranians did not suggest that this would be a deal
breaker they wanted time to think about it, and wanted to get to know us a
little better so that they would have a better idea of what these prior
consents would mean in practice.
At the end of a very cordial couple of days’ discussions Dr Etemad
reiterated the desire to get a better understanding of how we work and for us
to get a better understanding of Iran’s objectives, and suggested that if any
of the senior people in the Department were heading to Europe in the near
future they should call in to Tehran – “and don’t just spend a few hours at a
meeting and get back on the plane, spend a few days and get to know us better”.
It happened that I was already scheduled to travel to Europe
in June, and the then Secretary of the Department of Trade and Resources,
without a moment’s hesitation, put his hand on my shoulder and said “Paul is
off to Europe next month and he will call in to Tehran on his way home”.
So I found myself heading to Tehran for four days, which
involved some meetings with Dr Etemad and others from IAEC, but also involved some
sightseeing around Tehran and a trip to Bushehr on the Persian Gulf to see the
nuclear power station that was at that stage being constructed by Kraftwerke
Union, and was finished only a few years ago by the Russians. “Is there
anything you wanted to see while you are in Iran?” I was asked, to which I
replied “I have always wanted to go to Isfahan”. No problem, Senior Trade
Commissioner, Tehran Greg Burns and I were taken in an executive jet to see
Isfahan and Bushehr, and I have to say that a couple of hours in Isfahan lived
up to my expectations.
The Shah’s regime collapsed in 1979. Dr Etemad had resigned
his position and left the country a couple of months beforehand, an event which
had nothing to do with the imminent collapse of the regime. He moved to Paris
where he established a private consultancy business, and I saw him a couple
more times – he came to Australia a couple of times and we had him home for
dinner when he visited Canberra.
Although he was a senior official (title Deputy Prime
Minister) in the Shah’s regime, the comments in the Time article do not surprise me at all and I would expect that they
would be widely shared across the political spectrum:
“The
Europeans say stop enrichment and we'll talk, but the Iranians already did that
and nothing happened," said Dr. Etemad. "At the time of the Shah, we
signed contracts with both France and Germany and even then they didn't
deliver. If I were in the current regime, I wouldn't trust the West. They don't
even give Iran civilian airplane parts, which is costing hundreds of lives; why
should they believe that they will give them enriched uranium?" If that's
the position of a liberal critic of the regime, it's likely that the stance of
the current Iranian leadership on the nuclear issue enjoys widespread support
among Iranians.
…
“For
years now, they are threatening us with an attack," Dr. Etemad said,
adding, "This is humiliating. We are not ants," referring to an Esquire interview with Admiral
William Fallon about Iran back in March, in which he is reported to have said,
"These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them."
"If
you're weak, they attack you," says the scientist. "If you're not
weak, they won't attack you. We have to be a strong country and end these
humiliating threats. And being strong means not listening to the
foreigners."
If that is the attitude of
Iranians who have no reason to love the current regime, there is little
prospect of Iran, under any likely leadership or political evolution, agreeing
to give up its program.
Read the full Time article here.
For one of many previous posts on
this subject see What
should we make of Iran's nuclear program?
No comments:
Post a Comment