IRAN SHOULD ACCEPT UN RESOLUTION NOW

Dr. A.K. Enamul Haque

US rhetoric against Iran has increased significantly in recent times.  It appears from the reports around the world that President Bush has gone mad once again!  Last month he feared the beginning of the “third world war” if Iran achieved nuclear power (what a joke, does he think that world is still his colony?).  This was originally coined by the French government (albeit slightly differently) a month before but very soon the French government retracted from it.  Later on, the Israeli government had begun its push to move Bush!   Realizing the problem of going to a war without friends (after entering into Iraq) the President has become a bit cautious and is working closely with E3 countries (UK, France and Germany) on the Iranian nuke issues.

There are, however, problems in the sky.  On October 23, 2007, Mohamed El Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told France’s Le Monde newspaper “there was plenty of time for diplomacy, sanctions, dialogue and incentives to bear fruit.”  However, US Vice-President Dick Cheney said “the world would not stand by and let Iran develop a nuclear weapon”.  Iran says, “Its nuclear plans are peaceful and denies it wants to make an atomic bomb.”  On the other hand, Mr. El Baradei said, “I cannot judge their intentions, but supposing that Iran does intend to acquire a nuclear bomb, it would need between another three and eight years to succeed”.  All the intelligence services agree with that.

He further added that “I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat for tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb.  We are not at all in that situation.  Iraq is a glaring example of how, in many cases, the use of force exacerbates the problem rather than solving it.”

To make things worst, on September 6, 2007, Israel launched an attack on a suspected nuclear facility in Syria.  The IAEA is still trying to get information on the attack from Israel.  One can see the problems ahead.  The axis of Israel-US is working again to further create hegemony in the Middle East.  The consequence of this will be rising of oil prices.  Today it has hit 95$ per barrel.  While the richer countries quarrel over bombs poorer countries of the world will be starving a price to pay for the absence of world economic order.  I am sure that many countries in the world will not be able to pay for the basic foods while the richer countries can spend billions of dollars in creating hegemony in the world.  The advantage of this is that it will be easier to put puppets in power.  This is already happening around the world.  The so-called democracy fever is now in the “darkness” in many countries, the so-called “human rights” euphoria is now in the back seats in every nation and the so-called “environmentalism” has simply disappeared from the radar of these world powers.

Today (Nov 2, 2007) for the first time, the US has also expressed its dissatisfaction over the role played by China and Russia in terms of supporting the third round of sanctions against Iran in the UN.  As a result, the US has gone alone and has requested “friendly” countries to follow her steps.  Clearly, the US is again creating an artificial crisis (as they did during the Iraq crisis) and the smoking gun is the nuke (that time it was WMD).  Fortunately, during the Iraq crisis the IAEA was with the US (because El Baradei wanted his terms to be renewed!) and so Bush got what it wanted.  The UN imposed sanctions, the Allies provided forces, the IAEA approved the modalities and the US-Israeli axis got what that wanted.  They destabilized Iraq and acquired unrestricted rights to Iraqi oil fields. A destabilized Iraq is in the US interests because the oil fields will remain under their control.

Iran was naturally the next target because it is the third largest source of oil reserves in the region.  The first one is Saudi Arabia (already under US control), the second one is Iraq (under US occupation) and the third one is Iran, which needs to be brought under U.S. authority.  It will help the U.S. to maintain its economic supremacy and will help weaken countries, which are dependent on oil from Iran (like China).  Unfortunately, however, this time, El Baradei is not helping Mr. Bush.

One may argue whether the IAEA is objective in its findings at all.  I have doubts about their integrity.  During the Iraq crisis the IAEA simply dittoed the documents of the US and helped the UN to deal with Iraq the way the US wanted.  Between that time and today, the IAEA has not changed its operational procedure and did not correct their mistakes nor did they apologize to the world for their partisan attitude.  Today, given the same institution and same head, I strongly believe that they are not trustworthy at all.

So far, the UN has passed two rounds of sanctions against Iran based on IAEA’s findings.  Their new round of negotiation will be ending on November 15, 2005 and after that the US will try to push thru a third round of sanctions against Iran when they meet on November 19, 2007.  This is making the poorer world a bit nervous because oil prices will rise again.

Meanwhile the IAEA has just released a press report where they said that Iran has supplied “all necessary information” on key elements of its nuclear program to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Javad Vaeedi, head of the Iranian negotiating team said here after four-day talks with IAEA representatives.  It is obvious that the IAEA is playing a dubious role in confusing the world.  Their previous reports are full of vague statements and generalized conjectures.

Having said all this, I believe that Iran needs to play its card effectively to defuse the tension.  Iran should understand that in this polarized world, the US is still a super power and so challenging it openly will not bring success.  Indeed, they need to use their diplomacy and possibly accept a temporary retreat to defuse the tension.  In this regard, the first strategy shall be to get out of the UN’s crunch. The UN had imposed a sanction against Iran on March 24, 2006 because Iran did not suspend its nuclear activities as demanded by the Security Council in its resolution of July 23, 2005.  The current discussion led by the E3 plus the US is also a follow-up of the July 23, 2005 resolution.  Consequently, the suspension of nuclear facilities by Iran will be needed to avoid a strategic defeat.  However, once Iran suspends the facilities, the negotiation enters into round zero again and Iran can take advantage of its position in the new rounds of negotiation with IAEA.

It will also allow Iran to continue and enhance its ties with strategic partners.  The problem now is that all the 5 permanent members (unfortunately views of other members are not counted in the UN system) have approved the first two rounds of sanctions against Iran and so it will be difficult for them (including Russia and China) to ignore the US’s call for further sanctions unless the resolution of July 23, 2005 is adhered to by Iran.  Iran lost its battle partially at that time.  However, it has appeared that Iran’s relationship with Russia and China has grown ever since and so to put to an end of the last chapter, Iran needs to suspend its nuclear activities.  Hopefully, Iran would understand its diplomatic and strategic needs and will not stupidly defy the US like Saddam (despite the fact that US was wrongfully accusing Saddam for possession of WMDs).

Iran’s Problem: No Sale For Ahmadinejad In the West
By Philip Shaw M.Sc.

Sitting here in the west its easy to accuse Enamul of being a bit extreme when it comes to accusing President Bush of going mad once again.  When President Ahmadinejad came to New York recently he very publicly denied the existence of homosexuals in Iran.  He also defended his remarks as a holocaust denier.  With the President of Iran doing that in New York it’s very easy to figure out why Iran casts such a scary image in the west.  What he represents is so distasteful in western circles imagining a nuclear Iran only makes it worse.

That may be very difficult for many of you in less developed nations to stomach.  However, I’m the messenger here and in many conservative enclaves within the United States this is the way Iran is portrayed.  Ahmadinejad did nothing to dissuade the western media of this on his visit to New York.  If anything he made things worse for Iranians.

Nonetheless the vitriol against Iran in western circles is very palpable.  It’s also very dangerous.  One of my favourite world affairs writers is Fareed Zaharia, the editor for Newsweek International.  Last week he commented on the growing emotional sabre rattling within the United States.  The following is a direct quote from that article.

“Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland’s and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?” (Fareed Zakaria in World View Newsweek Magazine October 29, 2007)

Zakaria wrote that paragraph in an article entitled “Stalin, Mao…Ahmadinejad”.  Just the title alone tells us something about the west’s deference to Iran.  For those of you in Asia and the Middle East who have seen American bombing, you might have a hard time imagining this.  In any case Stalin and Mao both ordered millions of their own citizens put to death.  Zakria argues rightly that putting Ahmadinejad in this club is fantasy.  Nonetheless many people in the west are doing this.

Enamul makes a huge case that American interests in Iranian oil are leading this policy of sanctions and nuclear containment in Iran.  Certainly this might seem very possible in Asia but I reminded Enamul the number one exporter of oil to the United States is Canada with the number three exporter of oil being Mexico.  Saudi Arabia is second with Nigeria and hostile Venezuela chiming in next.  So I wouldn’t put to much credence on Iran’s oil resources as the focus for the Bush policy. I think it has much more to do with Ahmadinejad and Israel.

From my own perspective I’m pretty sure the west needn’t worry about Iran.  I’d rather put millions of dollars of western resources into Darfur or the Democratic Republic of the Congo than got to war with Iran over broken IAEA sanctions.  I’ve never been to Iran.  In fact I don’t know any Iranians.  However I’ve got a friend from Quebec who taught horticulture there.  He told me the people are not only hungry for western technology, but they are also hungry for better relations with the United States.  I believe him.

Enamul muses that the Iranians had better settle this current nuclear dispute with the United States to avoid the fate of Saddam Hussein.   From my perspective that’s a pretty good bet although I don’t think the Americans have any intention of doing anything war-like with Iran.  The American economy has not performed well lately with the sub prime mortgage debacle still smarting.  The US greenback has been in free fall down to its lowest levels in modern history.  Fighting another war on the other side of the world would be foolish.  One year from now the US will have a different President.  With that I believe the swagger concerning Iran will be long past.

A wild card in this whole scenario is Israel.  Simply put the influence of that tiny nation outweighs its borders especially in the United States.  As Syria recently found out, they won’t stop at nothing to guarantee their security.  A strike at Iran might upset this whole turnip wagon.

Cleary the pressure will be on November 19th when the next push for UN sanctions comes to a head.  I think there is wiggle room on both sides.  However, clearly from my perspective when it comes to a nuclear Iran, not everything is, as it seems.  Why aren’t the Americans currently convulsing on current events in nuclear Pakistan?  Oh right, how could I forget.  General Musharraf is our guy.  Looking the other way does have its advantages.