Gary Sick gives his version of recent events in Iran. After the original uranium agreement fell through, he faults the US and its allies:
[T]he United States and its partners could have responded with a counter-offer that would, for example, sequester the Iranian LEU under strict safeguards until the replacement fuel cells were available, thus accomplishing most, if not all, of their original objectives. Instead, they ended all negotiations and introduced a sharply critical resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency board.
Iran predictably responded by declaring it would reduce its cooperation with the IAEA and, in a fit of blustery indignation, announcing a new plan to build 10 additional enrichment sites a hollow threat since Iran lacked both the centrifuges and the necessary raw uranium fuel to carry it out.
Iran withdrew into its cocoon of haughty and pained victimization. The United States and its allies made a similar retreat to a posture of righteous indignation, the better to fashion “crippling” sanctions designed to force Iran to change its policies.
He also argues against sanctions because he seems them as ineffective.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.