Iran’s Nuclear Issues
August 25th, 2006The Iranian nuclear issue seems likely barring one side having a miraculous change of heart to be the subject of sanctions at the very least, but despite this even now it is difficult to see much substance to the Western concerns.
The Iranian government is correct in its claim that the right to a civilian energy program belongs to it under the NPT, and there is also much truth to its complaint that those countries that have signed the NPT are being harassed for daring to acquire nuclear technology of any kind whilst the non-NPT countries that have proliferated nuclear weapons (Israel, Pakistan, India) have received toleration or even fancy nuclear agreements. This clearly demonstrates that as regards international law and nuclear proliferation the U.S. acts strictly within the national interest and not against proliferation in principal, just ask “President” Musharraf
If you read the IAEA resolution, you’ll find that the complaints listed are basically superficial, a desire for better explanations and for the ratification of the additional protocol, the U.S. has also not ratified and which is at the moment not a of great importance since unratified it has no legal authority yet.
The Security Council Resolution is if anything flimsier in the attempt to meet the UN charter article 39 stipulation of:
any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression
This is especially hard to accept because according to most estimates, even were Iran to attempt to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible it would take years to do so.
Why is it then that this issue hasn’t been solved? That it is being given so much attention?
There is a clash of national interests, however much of what is now going on is related to prestige. Take the Russian nuclear proposal, it would have denied Russia a self sufficient nuclear industry, made it dependant on Russia for its nuclear energy supply, and lastly creates a relationship approximating the traditional colonial economic one in which the colony supplies a raw material to be used for making a manufactured product which is resold reaping the profits from the added value and keeping the colony in a state of dependence. So it is easy to see why no self-respecting country would accept that just so a country that has always been hostile to it can rest slightly easier
On the American side of course, the president is eager to show that he can make diplomatic successes and to prove he hasn’t been wrong rely on that approach, ideally before the upcoming mid-term congressional elections when his unpopularity is expected to be a liability to his party. President Bush is also eager to show he can participate in multilateral actions, and would like to show that he can “use†the UN which is rather unpopular in the U.S. in pursuit of national interests.
Israel is probably most invested in the diplomatic defeat of Iran, if it does not occur they will either need to bomb Iranian nuclear sites or lose face as it would then be clear that on top of the failures in Lebanon that they have lost the capability or the will to repeat their famous mission to destroy the Osirak reactor.
The U.S. has refused to resume talks without preconditions, of course this reflects the strength the US sees in its bargaining position rather than an value for the purpose of resolving the issue seeing as how regarding North Korea the U.S. has often been the one demanding the return to talks without preconditions. In rhetoric the U.S. has been surpassed only by the Israelis in the extreme nature of rhetoric regarding Iran, originally going so far as to claim Iran has no use for civilian nuclear power despite the fact the it was the United States that helped start the Iranian nuclear program under the Shah.
Even if an attempt at sanctions fails on account of a veto, the U.S. may attempt something on its own, let’s not forget that the virtually unilateral invasion of Iraq immediately followed the withdrawal of a resolution that would have authorized that action in the face of a likely French veto.
On the other hand that example also suggests that if sanctions do succeed the U.S. might keep pushing for harsher measures as in that case the U.S. managed to get free inspections in Iraq-Mission accomplished, but then invaded anyway suggesting that the Bush administration never wanted Iraq to give in to begin with. Some point to the handling of certain events such as Ahmadinejad’s letter as evidence of a similar lack of desire for compromise, although I am to some degree skeptical of this.
So much of what is going on is posturing, for whatever reason and unless one side backs down this is not going to end soon or under good circumstances. The issues has brought out one of the less savory aspects of great power interests, the desire to retard the technological progress of other countries.
Loading ...
Loading...