Bush’s
Roadblock At
The Security Council
By Mike Whitney
14 March, 2006
ICH
Surveys
were conducted months before the war on Iraq which showed that the American
people would only support the conflict if there was a danger that Saddam
was developing nuclear weapons. Other questions in the poll addressed
the issues of humanitarian intervention, Saddam’s abysmal human
rights record, and the prospect that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons.
None of these other potential
threats mattered to the American people. The only issue that gained
majority support for war was whether Saddam had nukes. It’s obvious
now that the findings of that poll became the cornerstone of the administration’s
public relations strategy.
Bottom line: The Bush-Cheney
plans for shaping public opinion will continue to depend on bogus claims
about nuclear weapons programs. This explains why the administration
and their agents in the MSM are intentionally misleading the public
about the true nature of Iran’s nuclear program; it is the only
way to elicit support for another war of aggression.
This also explains the furor
over the Niger uranium fabrication which discredited the administration
and resulted in the “outing” of Valerie Plame and the “swift-boating”
of Joe Wilson. Cheney knew that the nuclear-link was crucial to hoodwinking
the American people and could not allow Wilson to expose his lies.
The very same strategy is
being used to demonize Iran. The IAEA has repeatedly said that there
is “no evidence of a nuclear weapons program”, and yet,
the administration continues to mislead public without a shred of proof
to the contrary.
In the last week, the United
States has had at least two opportunities to resolve the standoff through
peaceful means. Instead, they torpedoed both deals and intensified the
belligerence.
Why?
It was astonishing to watch
Condi Rice hit the panic-button as soon as Iran’s foreign-minister
offered to give up “industrial enrichment” of uranium if
the IAEA would refrain from bringing the case before the Security Council.
This was a “huge” concession on the part of Iran. They were
giving up their legal rights under the treaty (NPT) and asking for nothing
in return!
Condi’s reaction?
She called IAEA chief ElBaradei
straight away insisting that,” The US cannot support this!”
Cannot support what? Negotiation?
Deliberation? Peace?
The State Dept made no attempt
to explore the Iranian offer or see whether it would lead to greater
concessions. It was simply dismissed outright.
It’s not hard to figure
out what that means as far as the chances for peace.
The State Dept reacted the
same way earlier in the week when Russia and Iran were working out the
details for enriching uranium outside of the country as a “confidence
building” measure. Once again, State Dept. officials immediately
rejected the “good faith” offer without pursuing further
negotiations.
The obvious implication is
that Washington wants another war and will subvert any attempt at negotiation
or diplomacy.
What else could it mean?
Today’s headlines are
reiterating the same hogwash: “Iran Spurns Russian Proposal”
(SF Chronicle) or “Iran Ruling out Russia in Nuclear Plan”
(CNN) or “Iran Rejects Russian offer to Diffuse Nuclear Dispute”
(NY Times). This is how the media uses the corporate-bullhorn to create
the impression that Iran is being “defiant”.
Baloney.
True, Iran has maintained
throughout that they will not concede their rights under the treaty
(NPT) but they have limited their demands to small amounts of uranium
in a research and development program to be overseen by the IAEA inspection
team.
Who could object to that?
The media has deliberately
misled the public about the Russian negotiations as well as who was
responsible for their ultimate failure. The New York Times, however,
summarizes it the best in their March 13 article by Nazila Fathi:
“Russia had offered
to enrich uranium for Iran for use for energy purposes if Iran would
refrain from doing so. It made a last minute face-saving offer to allow
Iran to continue some enrichment for research purposes but withdrew
the offer under Western pressure.”
“Western pressure”?
What the Times means is that
Russia “withdrew the offer under United States pressure”,
because Bush and company have no intention of allowing ANY settlement
to take place no matter how conciliatory or personally-compromising.
But didn’t Iran’s
foreign minister say that “The Russian deal is no longer on the
agenda”?
Yes and no.
Iran said that it wants to
see what the Security Council does before they make any more decisions.
As for the precise statement by Iran’s foreign minister:
“As for the Russian
proposal, if it considers Iran’s right to conduct research in
Iran on its own soil, it can be a topic of negotiation, because the
right to conduct research in Iran is the Islamic Republic’s right
that we neither want to give up nor will give up”.
Hamid Reza Asefi’s
statement is a straightforward defense of the basic terms of the treaty
(NPT) a treaty to which the United States is also a signatory and has
clear obligations. Should Asefi simply toss the “internationally-approved”
treaty on the burn-pile because it no longer fits within the Bush administration’s
foreign policy strategy?
Yes, according to Bush.
The media’s role in
demonizing Iran cannot be overstated, nor can we really appreciate the
extent of US recalcitrance without following the minutia of daily statements
and demands. The United States has elevated the issue of Iran’s
imaginary nuclear weapons program to crisis level. We must assume that
its part of the broader scheme to incite violence and spread the Iraq
war throughout the region.
Total war?
Isn’t that where all
this bluster and harassment is headed?
But will the Bush administration
be able to win UN Security Council approval for their war plans? Will
there be sanctions?
No! No sanctions and no resolution
condemning Iran’s program.
The New York Times reported
on Friday that, “A draft document, which the Council members have
indicated they hope to issue next week as a nonbinding presidential
statement, says the Council continues to hope for a negotiated solution
‘that guarantees Iran’s nuclear program is for exclusively
peaceful purposes.”
“A nonbinding presidential
statement”?
This is what we have been
saying here for months and now the NY Times is reluctantly confirming
it. There are no grounds for “punitive action” because Iran
is not in “noncompliance”. The entire matter has only reached
this level of attention because the inordinate amount of raw power and
arm-twisting the US can bring to bear in foreign affairs.
“A nonbinding presidential
statement” is the equivalent of saying, “We have no proof
that you are doing anything illegal, but we will scold you anyway”.
It is an empty statement
which has no legal precedent or authority and infers nothing about violations
to the NPT. It is strictly a gratuitous proclamation designed to placate
the war-mongering occupants of the Bush White House.
The Bush administration has
no proof that Iran has violated the terms of its treaty.
The IAEA has no proof that
Iran has violated the terms of its treaty.
The UN Security Council has
no proof that Iran has violated the terms of its treaty.
The whole fiasco has been
orchestrated to deceive the public and pave the way for war.