Nevertheless, we can still nurture some hope that the good relations Iran and Turkey have historically maintained and their recent rising trend may have positive effects on the nuclear agenda.Naturally, Turkey is concerned with any development that may lead to escalating tension in the already problematic and slippery Middle East. It sees Iran's search for nuclear weapon capability and reactions to that from this perspective. Of course, the international concerns over Iran's nuclear efforts can be justified to some extent. Yet I see merit in engaging in something that is never employed in diplomacy and international relations; i.e., empathy. Everyone is well informed about the discourse and arguments made by the Western world, of which we see ourselves as a part, concerning Iran. I believe that it would prove beneficial if we put ourselves in Iran's shoes as one of the most influential countries in the Middle East with a view to analyzing how it sees the nuclear issue.
Iran is known to have a stance toward regional and international issues, summarized as the ABC stance, where A stands for "activism," B for "bridge" and C for "cooperation."
Iran's need for security, just like all other countries, requires it to be proactive in foreign policy -- particularly in its troubled region. Indeed, for Iran, the term "Middle East" refers to a larger geography than the West tends to include as being part of it. Iran's Middle East is a region stretching from Central Asia to the Indian subcontinent. It may sound unbelievable to some ears, but Iran prefers to define itself more as a "soft power" than a "hard power," despite its nuclear aims. Iran says that it is no longer pursuing the policy of exporting its Islamic revolution to other countries as it did in the 1980s and that is does not approve of the policy of military intervention with international issues. Defining itself as a "regional power," Iran claims that all of its activism in the international arena is "peaceful."
Not a Central Asian country although it borders the region, not a Caucasian country although it borders that region, not a Mediterranean country although it borders one, not a Gulf country although it borders it and not on the subcontinent although it borders it, Iran tries to play the role of a "bridge" between all these regions. One can conclude that from a historical, cultural, religious or geographical perspective, it would not be easy for Iran to secure its national security in such a region, particularly when the characteristics of its regime are taken into consideration.
For this reason, regional and international cooperation is more important for Iran than for other countries. Iran prefers to establish close relations not only within its immediate geography but also with international organizations, and Iranian diplomacy is actively promoting the country's involvement with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the United Nations, the Developing 8 (D-8), the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). For this reason, Iranians see it as unfair to reduce Iran, which has such a complex web of relations, and its foreign policy to just the nuclear agenda.
While they concede that Iran is suffering considerably from its bad image, they stress that Iran does not deserve this image as it is a not a new player in the region. They are of the opinion that if there will be a regional peace and security plan, it must take Iran's security needs into consideration, too. While some treat Iran as a threat to regional peace, Iranians regard Israel's military destructive power, built as a war machine, as a threat to their security. Indeed, these mutual perceptions of the Iranians and the Israelis are the essence of the problem in the region.
Israel sees the Iranian regime as its archenemy in the region, claiming that Iran's main policy is the "total destruction of Israel" and that this policy dates back to a time before the Ahmadinejad administration. Israel and Western countries believe that Iran will not be satisfied with becoming a "regional power," but that it also seeks to become a "global power." To reach this goal, they say, Iran wants to emerge as a nuclear power. The West is deeply concerned with the assumption that after developing nuclear weapons technology, Iran will seek to become the leader of the Islamic world, which has a population of over 1.3 billion. The support Iran gives to some "terrorist organizations" further fuels these fears. An Iran that is completely against Western democracy and lifestyles and is very ambitious to possess weapons of mass destruction is also a source of further concern due to its possession of long-range missile systems (the Shahab missiles have a range of 5,000 kilometers) that can even hit Western European countries like Belgium and the Netherlands. They argue that Iran has a bigger and more dangerous goal than just to destroy Israel.
Israel, whose security is known to be the primary priority in US policy, does not hide its intention and resolution to prevent Iran from owning nuclear weapons at all costs. However, Israel is still concerned that the direct destruction option, which it sees as the last resort, may become the only resort after the failure of diplomatic efforts. For this reason, Israel seems to be more willing than any other country to see diplomatic efforts prove productive.
Unfortunately, the realm of international relations corresponds to a field dominated not by ethical rules but by double standards and hypocritical stances. Everyone is well aware of the fact that the nuclear-free Middle East initiative voiced persistently by Iran and supported by Turkey in the past has received the biggest blow from the already existing nuclear weapon capabilities of Israel, which refuses to even be a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This fact continues to serve as clear proof that the campaign to deter Iran from becoming a nuclear power is a double standard despite the fact that a non-nuclear Iran is far more preferable to all of us.
Benzer Haberler 
