Iran:
Where Do We Go From Here?
By Mike Whitney
15 March, 2006
Uruknet
The Bush administration has run
into a rock wall at the Security Council. Neither Russia nor China will
agree to any resolution that condemns Iran for "noncompliance"
with its treaty obligations. In fact, there is general agreement that
Iran has not violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) so the
point is moot. This eliminates any chance that punitive action will
be taken against Iran or that sanctions will be applied.
So why did the Bush administration
take the case this far if they knew that there was no possibility for
consensus on the main issue?
The administration knew from
the beginning that the world body would not support sanctions or military
action. The intention was simply to increase suspicion about Iran’s
nuclear programs and mobilize public support for a war.
In fact, the United States
is not at all concerned with Iran’s nuclear programs. It is merely
a hoax that is being used to conceal Washington’s war plans.
Presently, the administration
is trying to coerce the Security Council to issue a strongly-worded
"presidential statement" laying out what Iran needs to do
to ease concerns that it is using its civilian programs to hide a nuclear
weapons program.
Since there is "no evidence"
of such programs (according to the UN watchdog agency IAEA) the Security
Council should not become involved in a process that can only strengthen
the administrations plans to attack Iran.
The "presidential statement"
does not have the power of a Security Council "resolution".
It cannot be used to apply sanctions or to take military action. It
is purely a formal reprimand that makes constructive suggestions for
changing behavior. It is designed to allay fears that Iran may be secretly
building nukes. Unfortunately, the statement is utterly meaningless
since Iran has already allowed the most extensive inspection regime
to rummage through every aspect of its nuclear program for 2 years without
producing any proof of wrongdoing.
The Bush administration would
never waste its time on diplomatic maneuvering unless it had a goal
in mind. The strategy for using the presidential statement as a pretext
for war is evident in the way the wording is being negotiated. Rather
than simply saying that the Security Council hopes that Iran will guarantee
that its program is "exclusively peaceful purposes"; the US
wants to add that, "continued enrichment-related activity would
add to the importance and urgency of further action by the Council".
This phrasing provides the
US with a pretext for intervention if Iran continues to enrich uranium.
The statement also contains
a demand that Iran accept an "additional protocol" that gives
IAEA inspectors "exceptional access to plants". It asks for
"additional 'transparency measures,’ including access to
individuals, documents, and research laboratories".
In essence, the statement
insists that Iran forgo its "inalienable right" to enrich
uranium for peaceful purposes and accept an intrusive inspection-regime
that can ferret through every armory, barracks, conventional-weapons
site, communications facility, ammunition-dump, palace, and research
laboratory in the country. This is the same rule that was applied to
Saddam before the war in Iraq.
But, why should Iran agree
to this public humiliation if it has done nothing wrong? Should they
sacrifice their sovereign rights just to placate Washington?
Iran will never accept these
conditions nor would the United States if the situation was reversed.
Iran must continue to defend its right to enrich uranium and, thus,
vindicate the principle that underscores international treaties. The
Bush administration has no authority to repeal treaties nor does it
have the right to create the conditions whereby the terms of those treaties
are rescinded.
The "presidential statement"
will be used in the media to demonize Iran for its alleged "defiance"
and to convince the public that there is universal agreement on Iran’s
imaginary nuclear weapons programs. Although the statement does not
authorize the US to take unilateral action, it will be used to do just
that. John Bolton has already admitted that if the Security Council
does not meet the administrations expectations, the US may act on its
own and look for partners in applying sanctions or taking military action.
So, where do we go from here?
There’s a good chance
that the logistical groundwork for war with Iran has already been laid.
This would explain the earnestness of American diplomats at the State
Dept. and the UN.
The Security Council needs
to realize the gravity of the situation and take positive steps to diffuse
the crisis. The Council should forgo the issuing of the "presidential
statement" and buttress Iran’s rights under the NPT to enrich
uranium under the strict supervision of the IAEA. They should also condemn
any unilateral action by member states as a violation to the UN Charter
which confers sole authority to the UN Security Council for sanctions
or military action.
Most of all, the United Nations
must defend its own credibility as a viable institution for world peace
by ensuring that it is not used to mask the war-mongering objectives
of other nations.
Courtesy and Copyright ©
Mike Whitney