inside the glass house

Iraq syndrome in US showdown with Iran
NEW YORK - The growing political confrontation between Iran and the United States is heading for a predictable showdown. The battle lines are clear: the Iranians argue that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), they have a legitimate right to enrich uranium — and they will exercise that right in defiance of the West.

The US and the European Union (EU) say Iran has forfeited that right because it has a secret programme to develop nuclear weapons.
But neither the Americans nor the Europeans have any tangible proof to bolster their case. The US wants to pursue its new-found military doctrine of "pre-emptive strikes" to prevent the creation of a new nuclear power -- even though it has learnt to live with three other nuclear states, namely Israel, India and Pakistan, and possibly a fourth, a future North Korea.
The US, which rushed into war with Iraq on the ground that it had weapons of mass destruction, has already lost its political credibility and may have a more difficult time convincing the international community that it is not repeating the mistakes of its blundering past.

The Americans are still to find the nuclear, biological and chemical weapons they were hunting for inside Iraq: weapons that apparently threatened not only the US but also its close ally Israel, whose supporters are accused of pushing the Bush administration into the hasty, ill-fated invasion of Iraq.
Perhaps a similar military scenario could play itself again — both as comedy and tragedy. Robert Joseph, a US State Department official in charge of battling nuclear proliferation, told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "a nuclear-armed Iran with this (current) leadership does represent an existential threat to the state of Israel."

Although he said he had "no clear idea of when Iran might obtain a (nuclear) weapon," he articulated the US view forcefully. "We ought to make very clear not only that we find that repugnant, but that it has policy significance, that it hardens our view, and that we and the entire international community must band together and prevent this (Iranian) regime from acquiring nuclear weapons."

As the US and Iran continue with charges and counter charges, the nuclear issue is expected to come before the Security Council next week or later in May. But the five permanent Security Council members which wield veto powers -- the US, Britain, France, China and Russia -- remain sharply divided.

The US strategy is to get the Security Council to adopt a resolution declaring Iran's defiance as a "threat to international peace and security": a resolution similar to the one directed at Iraq over three years ago. But this time it may be a non-starter.

When the Security Council refused to give the Bush administration a second resolution, specifically sanctioning an invasion of Iraq, the White House cleverly used the first resolution -- and specifically the clause relating to the "threat to international peace and security" -- as a justification for the invasion of Iraq.

The Bush administration wrongfully argued that the Security Council had already provided the US with a legitimate right to the war against Iraq.
But the other members of the Security Council — specifically Russia and China — pointed out that the war against Iraq was illegal because the Council did not sanction a military invasion per se. Even Secretary-General Kofi Annan made a public pronouncement that the US war was "illegal" -- a statement that came back to haunt him because the Bush administration never forgave him for speaking his mind on the illegality of the war. The campaign to crucify Annan by political neo conservatives and right wing Republicans in the US was triggered primarily by his statement against the invasion.

The US move to impose economic and military sanctions on Iran is being strongly resisted both by China and Russia. The Americans say that both countries are resisting sanctions because they have economic and military interests in Iran — Iranian oil to China and Russian weapons to Iran. But safeguarding one's own national interest is not the intellectual birthright of the Americans. If it has worked for the US before, it should also work for the Russians and the Chinese.

Nicholas Burns, US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, has been making a case for isolating the Iranians diplomatically and economically. But he has been making little or no progress. According to a New York Times story, Burns has acknowledged that a US request to halt the sale of anti-aircraft missile equipment to Iran has been "rebuffed" by the Russians.
Russia and China are also wary about bringing the Iranian nuclear issue to the Security Council. Both countries argue that all nuclear matters should be resolved by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Last week Russian President Vladimir Putin reinforced this view when he said: "We think that the IAEA must continue to play a key role and it must not shrug off its responsibilities to resolve such questions and shift them to the UN Security Council."

Since Security Council penalties against Iran may be very unlikely at this stage, the US and the European Union will likely pursue bilateral sanctions without the blessings of the international community. Perhaps that could be the only face-saving grace for the Americans and the Europeans in a no-win situation.

Back to Columns