US-Backed
UN Resolution
Heightens Tensions With Iran
By Peter Symonds
30 December 2006
World
Socialist Web
Months
after the expiry of a UN deadline for Iran to suspend its nuclear programs,
the US finally pushed a resolution through the UN Security Council on
Saturday imposing a series of sanctions on Tehran. While the resolution
represents a compromise, there is no doubt that the Bush administration
will exploit it to the hilt to fuel tensions with Iran.
Acting US ambassador to the
UN Alejandro Wolff declared that the Security Council had sent an “unambiguous
message that there are serious repercussions” for Iran’s
refusal to shut down its uranium enrichment programs. “If necessary,
we will not hesitate to return to this body for further action if Iran
fails to take steps to comply,” he warned.
The resolution invoked Chapter
7 of the UN Charter making its provisions binding on all member states,
but under Article 41, which explicitly excludes the use of armed force.
It bans the import and export of ballistic missiles and materials and
technology used in uranium enrichment or reprocessing, and freezes the
assets of 10 Iranian companies and 12 individuals allegedly involved
in nuclear and ballistic missile programs. A committee can add further
names.
Russia, with the backing
of China, had opposed the imposition of sanctions after Iran refused
to comply with an August 31 deadline to halt enrichment. Both countries,
which hold a veto in the Security Council, joined other members in a
unanimous vote, after extracting several concessions. The resolution
excludes sanctions against a nuclear power plant being constructed at
Bushehr by Russian firms. The US and European governments also agreed
to water down a mandatory travel ban on Iranians said to be involved
in nuclear activities.
The resolution, which imposes
a 60-day deadline, sets the stage for an escalating confrontation with
Tehran. The UN Security Council is due to meet again in two months to
consider a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
on Iran’s nuclear programs. Tehran, however, has already declared
that it will not comply and intends to accelerate its enrichment program.
The Iranian parliament voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to require
the government “to revise its cooperation” with the IAEA.
Iran has insisted all along
that its nuclear programs are for peaceful purposes. It has not withdrawn
from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has allowed IAEA
inspectors to monitor its facilities, including its uranium enrichment
test plant at Natanz. IAEA reports over the past three years have found
no positive evidence that Iran has any nuclear weapons program.
The hypocritical nature of
Washington’s condemnations of Iran is underscored by the fact
that Congress recently ratified a nuclear agreement with India, exempting
it from US anti-proliferation provisions and allowing the sale of nuclear
technology and fuel. India, like two other US allies—Pakistan
and Israel—has refused to sign the NPT and has built a substantial
nuclear arsenal. Under the accord, the US has removed what remains of
the limited sanctions imposed on India when it exploded a nuclear bomb
in 1998.
Iran’s alleged weapons
programs are simply a pretext for the Bush administration to pursue
its aim of “regime change” in Tehran as part of its broader
ambitions to secure US dominance over the resource-rich regions of Central
Asia and the Middle East. US demands for tough sanctions against Iran
cut directly across the economic interests of its rivals—not only
Russia and China, but the European powers and Japan. None have voiced
any principled opposition to US aggression, however, and have gone along
with the UN resolution in an effort to moderate its impact.
Nevertheless, the White House
has made clear that it will not confine its actions to the UN. Commenting
on the resolution, US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said he
hoped it “would open the way for further action outside the Security
Council”. He declared: “We don’t think this resolution
is enough in itself. We’re certainly not going to put all of our
eggs in a UN basket.”
The US is engaged in an extensive
operation to bully international agencies, foreign governments and corporations
into severing financial ties with Iran. The US Treasury blacklisted
the Tehran-based Saderat Bank in September, claiming it serviced terrorist
groups. The implicit threat to foreign banks and institutions doing
business in Iran is that they may be excluded from the US banking system.
The Swiss bank UBS, as well as the European banks HSBC and Credit Suisse,
have already cut or scaled back their operations in Iran.
The US is threatening to
penalise the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) after
it signed a $16 billion natural gas deal with Iran on December 22. The
Bush administration can take action under the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanction
Act, which prohibits foreign firms that invest more than $10 million
in the Iranian energy sector from raising capital in the US. Any action
against CNOOC, which is listed on the New York stock exchange, would
be the first use of the Act’s provisions against a foreign company.
The threat of US military action
The Bush administration’s
willingness to take unilateral action against Iran is not limited to
economic penalties. In February, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
requested an additional $75 million to support Iranian exile groups
and political opposition inside Iran. A new Iranian Affairs office to
promote “regime change” has been established under the supervision
of Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter, Elizabeth Cheney.
The White House has rejected
the recommendation of the top-level Iraq Study Group report for talks
with Iran and Syria to seek assistance in suppressing the anti-US insurgency
in Iraq. Far from negotiating with Tehran, the administration has drawn
up military plans against Iran and declared that it is keeping all options
on the table. Bush and his officials have repeatedly accused Iran of
arming and assisting Shiite militia in Iraq, adding another pretext
for an attack.
Veteran journalist Seymour
Hersh has published a number of articles in the New Yorker during the
past two years providing details of the Pentagon and Bush administration’s
preparations for an assault on Iran, including the possible use of nuclear
weapons. His latest article last month entitled “The Next Act:
Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?”
cites a number of US intelligence and military sources who point to
the ongoing push for military action.
According to Hersh, many
in the White House and Pentagon insist that “getting tough with
Iran is the only way to salvage Iraq”. A Pentagon consultant complained:
“It is a classic case of ‘failure forward’. They believe
that by tipping over Iran they would recover their losses in Iraq—like
doubling your bet.” Another government consultant told Hersh that
for some advocates of military action “the goal in Iran is not
regime change but a strike that will send a signal that America can
still accomplish its goals. Even if it does not destroy Iran’s
nuclear network, there are many who think that 36 hours of bombing is
the only way to remind the Iranians of the very high cost of going forward
with the bomb.”
The second consultant, who
has close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership, pointed out that
the US has been collaborating with Israel over the past six months in
supporting a Kurdish armed group—the Party for Free Life—in
fomenting opposition inside the Kurdish regions of Iran. Its activities
include spying on “targets inside Iran of interest to the US”.
The Pentagon has also established covert links with Kurdish, Azeri and
Baluchi tribal groups as a means for undermining the central government’s
authority in northern and southeastern Iran.
The US has a substantial
military presence in two of Iran’s neighbours—Afghanistan
and Iraq—as well as a huge naval presence in the Persian Gulf
and military bases in several Gulf states. An article in the New York
Times last week reported that Defence Secretary Robert Gates was expected
to approve the deployment of a second aircraft carrier group to the
Gulf. While denying that the move was in preparation for offensive action
against Iran, senior American officials told the newspaper that the
deployment was “to make clear that the focus on ground troops
in Iraq has not made it impossible for the United States and its allies
to maintain a military watch on Iran”.
In a December 27 editorial,
the Wall Street Journal, which is aligned with the most militarist sections
of US ruling elite, contemptuously dismissed the UN Security Council
resolution. “As his Presidency grows shorter,” it concluded,
“Mr Bush is going to have to decide how much longer he can afford
to let diplomacy dominate his Iran strategy. The mullahs in Tehran have
made clear their determination to build a nuclear weapon; the West has
yet to show any comparable determination to stop them.”
The logic is obvious. With
two years left in office, the Bush administration must end its diplomatic
manoeuvres in the UN and launch a new military adventure against Iran.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights