The undermining of previous agreements between Iran and the P5+1 by the US and the influence of Israel over scores of US Senators are main obstacles for reaching a conclusion in the upcoming negotiations in Moscow.
Press TV has interviewed Mark Glenn, Co-founder of the Crescent and Cross Solidarity Movement, Idaho, about international acceptance of Iran's right to have nuclear energy, division in the P5+1, and the influence of Israel even though a non-signatory to the NPT, in the upcoming talks. What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview.
If you could tell us what you think whether Iran is not asking too much for its right to be recognized when it says it wants to enrich uranium? That has been put forward by the Western side, by the Western media as a sticking point. Do you think it still is a sticking point?
Well, certainly for the West it is a sticking point; however, what we have to remember is this - Iran is a sovereign country, it is not a pliant state. Iran is the only rational player in all of this. Iran is the one player who is sticking by the terms of the Non Proliferation Treaty.
These other countries? Look at what we're dealing with… where dealing with the US pointing a finger at Iran saying you may not have nuclear energy.
The US is the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons against a country that was in the waning days of World War II that was basically defeated and about to surrender.
The rest of these countries namely Great Britain, France and Germany have been a part of NATO actions where depleted uranium, which for all intents and purposes are nuclear weapons in the sense that they irradiate the environment where they're used leading to death and birth defects and affecting the area for hundreds or even thousands of years.
And so Iran is the only rational player in all of this.
For the US and these other Western countries to say Iran in asserting her right to utilize nuclear energy for peaceful purposes that this is a sticking point really just goes to underscore the madness that has infected much of the West as a result of this disproportionate influence that Israel wields over the political process.
One issue that's caused a lot of concern here is the possibility of division among the P5+1 groups... Do you think the fact that the P5+1 group may be divided on how they approach Iran or on what steps they should take towards Iran that is in itself going to stop progress?
Well, I think the fact that it's taking place in Moscow and that Russia is hosting these talks after the failed talks that took place in Baghdad is a very hopeful sign because what Russia is doing here in cooperation with China and with Iran is sending a very subtle but powerful message diplomatically and politically to other members of the P5+1, which is that Russia is basically in Iran's camp on this as far as Iran's right to manufacture nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
I think this is very hopeful in that you have Russia standing up in a very prominent and very bold way and telling the US and the rest of these Zionist-controlled countries who are attending these talks that Russia understands the nature of the game that is being played and that Russia is going to act as a counterbalance to this.
I think the Russians in this may very well if they continue on in the path that they're going that they may possibly avert what could be a military conflagration that could engulf, or make the present hostilities look like a picnic.
And I think that the fact that Russia is hosting these talks and that Russia of course recently has come out and has been very bold in opposing any NATO military intervention in Syria and in other places, I think that this is a very hopeful sign that we may actually be able to bring some sanity to an otherwise intractable situation.
You referred earlier in your comments to the role of Israel. One analyst was asking in a commentary I was reading how qualified is Israel as a Non-NPT signatory to suggest punishing a member-state like Iran for allegedly transgressing the NPT?
The thing is… there has been no official evidence that Iran is after nuclear weapons yet. We have these strong allegations and the strongest are coming from Israel, which is a non-NPT signatory itself.
So, basically do you think that these talks are not about preventing Iran from being a nuclear weapons state, but about something else?
Yes of course. If Iran was not working on using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes then Israel would try to find a way to argue for war against Iran based on the fact that Iran is the world's largest exporter of pistachio nuts.
The bottom line here is that Israel wants Iran destroyed because Iran is a source of strength and stability in the Middle East and the only way Israel can exist in that region is to have all the surrounding countries in positions of instability and chaos and so Iran being there and Iran having achieved real revolution and real freedom, which she achieved in 1979 with the revolution - this is a thorn in Israel's side and it threatens Israel's dominance in the region for the foreseeable future.
Especially if the rest of these Islamic countries start forming an alliances and friendships with Iran and start using Iran as a role model for how they would like to see their countries and their societies governed.