I am writing in response to the Thursday editorial “Europe, IAEA going soft on Iran. I would like to remind the editorial board that the United States has not yet ratified the International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol it had signed in 1998. Israel has not even joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and its nuclear facilities and nuclear weapons stockpiles are off limits to the atomic energy agency’s inspectors.

Iran, however, while under no obligation to do so, has fully complied with the protocol, and by voluntarily freezing its low level uranium enrichment program has now gone beyond what is required of it.

The board points to Iran’s “hatred of the United States Ö” Let me clarify that statement. Iran resents the United States’ Iran policy. Why? Well, didn’t the Central Intelligence Agency help overthrow the democratically elected Mossadeq government in 1953 in Iran, which lead to a quarter-century of dictatorial rule by the Shah? And when Iranians began demonstrations against the Shah in 1978, wasn’t it the United States that supported the Shah without reservation and urged him to act forcefully? And at the last minute, wasn’t it the United States that tried to organize a military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail?

Then wasn’t it the Carter administration who tacitly condoned, if not actively encouraged, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in September of 1980? During the following years, wasn’t it the United States who opposed any Security Council action to condemn Saddam’s invasion of Iran? And wasn’t it now-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who we saw shaking hands with Saddam in December of 1983, while acknowledging that the United States knew Iraq was using chemical weapons? And wasn’t it insulting to decorate the commander of an aggressive U.S. ship who shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290 in 1987?

I believe the board could benefit from a refresher course in history. Here is a simple rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you.

The board writes “(Iran) claims a nuclear program would diversify its energy resources, but that line sounds odd coming from one of the most oil-rich nations on Earth.”

I think you will find it interesting that according to declassified confidential U.S. government documents posted on the Digital National Security Archive, in the mid-1970s, a study by the influential Stanford Research Institute concluded that Iran would need, by the year 1990, an electrical capacity of approximately 20,000 megawatts.

The United States encouraged Iran to expand its non-oil energy base, suggested to the Shah that Iran needed not one but several nuclear reactors to acquire the electrical capacity that the Stanford Research Institute had proposed and expressed interest in U.S. companies participating in Iran’s nuclear energy projects

In 1975, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology signed a contract with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran for providing training for the first group of Iranian nuclear engineers.

The author continues with “Iran also insists on manufacturing its own uranium, claiming it cannot trust uranium imported from abroad. Why foreign-produced uranium cannot be trusted is equally hard to understand Ö” The answer is simple: It’s about being independent and relying on themselves.

Why should Iran compromise the security of their energy supply? We wouldn’t, would we? Again, keep in mind: Treat others as you would have them treat you.

Hamid Mokhtarzadeh is a University student. Please send comments to [email protected].