Twenty-four Persian-American luminaries signed a plea recently at supportpeace.org in favor of the proposed nuclear deal with Iran.  This followed a similar statement by twenty-nine eminent American nuclear scientists.  

These are distinguished Americans.  Their very resplendence could blind us to how incomplete their arguments have been, at least so far.  Wandering far from fields that made them famous, they seem to stumble around geopolitics like newcomers, uncertain of their next step and of the full lay of the land.  When it comes to the issue of releasing hundreds of billions of dollars to Khamenei, their résumés are tangential, and their advice could hurt millions.

And yet it is not too late.  As Support Peace suggests, “solving problems through communication is better for the world.”  But before agreement can be sought, disagreement must be understood, all arguments laid bare, facts exposed, and the logic revealed.  A polite debate with our luminaries might prompt them to take a giant new step toward peace by publicly asking for real change in Iran – a genuine turn away from militarism and toward liberty and coexistence.  These fifty-three American leaders have a bully pulpit, and they should use it.

American scientists say that technical protocols could monitor nuclear compliance with marvelous precision.  One is reminded, however, of finding a drunk by a street lamp at night, crawling on his hands and knees, looking for car keys.  Asked if he lost his keys there, he replies, "No, but I’m using this light to find them!"  The capacity of any inspection to find what is meant to be found is overwhelmed by the nature of the actors.  Our fifty-three luminaries have so far ignored overwhelming evidence as to the character of the Iranian regime.  This regime will turn the lights on only in the wrong places.  And the keys that need to be found will not be found in time.

Who could argue against peace?  And who could argue with scientists?  Who could argue against more communication and understanding between nations?  Certainly we should not.  Yet what matters here is not our desire for peace, nor the scientific feasibility of monitoring a nuclear program in an ideal world.  What matters is politics.  What matters is whether this regime shares our goal of peace; whether this regime will allow the inspection process to work; whether this regime will use America’s hundreds of billions of dollars for peace or for war.

Let us not fool ourselves.  Tens of billions of dollars invested by the Iranian regime in nuclear capabilities was never meant for medical research or alternative energy.  Medical isotope facilities around the world do not ring their perimeter fences with anti-aircraft emplacements.  Iran’s program has been about nuclear weapons from the beginning.

The regime has announced in recent days that – deal or no deal – it will continue its decades-long campaign of foreign subversion, weapon deliveries, terrorism, and development of new missile systems.  They have held power for thirty-six years by ruthlessly killing any democratic opposition.  Their aggression outside their own borders has been felt from Berlin to Buenos Aires.  And they assert a right to eliminate an entire nation from the maps of the Earth.  Indeed, they have reversed the famous dictum of Carl Von Clausewitz, for we see that with this regime, diplomacy is merely war by other means.  It is a continuation of a war they’ve prosecuted for three dozen years, and a preparation for more war, an unfolding shield for their conventional and unconventional wars currently spanning eight countries.

These are not reformers.  We should not shower them with colossal sums of Western money.

If our scientists and Persian-American luminaries take the next logical step, they have a great opportunity for good.  They should quickly follow up their petition for diplomacy with a petition for human rights.  A petition for liberty in Iran.  A petition for goodwill with all its neighbors.  With all nations, and all religions.  When genuine reformers can finally speak truth to power inside Iran, then diplomacy and all good things will be truly possible at last.  Our distinguished Americans, especially those who love Iran, as I do, have a high responsibility to speak for the voiceless inside Iran – until their voices can be heard without fear of death.

Our fifty-three luminaries have earned their high stature.  They are influential and persuasive.  But they, as we all, remain accountable.  History could pivot on their next steps, or else their silence.

Only by demanding that freedom flower once again in Persia can we all reach the dawn we seek, and cast a stone of peace to put the darkness to flight.