Doug Lorimer
The veto-welding permanent members of the UN Security Council — Britain, China, France, Russia and the US — remained divided over how to deal with Iran's nuclear program following the council's receipt on April 28 of a report from Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). ElBaradei reported that Iran has refused to abandon uranium enrichment.
On March 29, the Security Council set a non-binding, 30-day deadline for Iran to comply with a request, made in early February by the governing board of the IAEA, for Iran to indefinitely halt its research into the production of low-enriched uranium (LEU) as a "confidence-building measure".
On April 11, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that two days earlier Iranian scientists had succeeded in producing nearly 2 kilograms of LEU. However, to start up a 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant, such as the one Russia is constructing in southern Iran, would require 75 tonnes of LEU.
Under the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Iran is a signatory, all treaty members are legally entitled "without discrimination" to research and produce enriched uranium for peaceful purposes, subject to IAEA supervision. IAEA inspectors have enjoyed unimpeded access to Iran's nuclear facilities and have — even at sites suggested by Washington as harbouring "secret" nuclear activities — found no indication of any nuclear weapons program.
US officials claim that Iran's LEU research is aimed at producing weapons-grade uranium (uranium with a level of the uranium-235 isotope that is at least 90% — natural uranium has 0.7% U-235; LEU has at least 3.5% U-235). This claim has been accepted by London and Paris, Washington's NATO allies on the Security Council, which are jointly pushing for the Security Council to declare Iran's nuclear program a "threat international peace and security".
"The Security Council is the primary and most important institution for the maintenance of peace and stability and security and it cannot have its word and its will simply ignored by a member state", US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters on April 27 at a NATO meeting of foreign ministers in Bulgaria.
However, Moscow and Beijing have argued on the basis of IAEA inspectors' reports that there is no evidence that Iran has violated the NPT. They are opposed to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program being dealt with primarily through the Security Council. "We think that the IAEA must continue to play a major, key role, and it must not shrug off its responsibilities to resolve such questions and shift them on to the UN Security Council", Russian President Vladimir Putin said at an April 27 news conference in the Siberian city of Tomsk.
The April 27 Time magazine observed that Washington "has been unable to forge a UN consensus behind any steps to pressure Iran, partly because of skepticism over Washington's own intentions".
"Russia and China, for instance, haven't budged on their opposition to imposing Security Council sanctions on Iran, and the US isn't even going to try to get a sanctions resolution now. Instead, the US and its key allies will push for another Security Council resolution, reiterating the demand for Iran to cease enrichment activities under Chapter 7 of the UN's Charter — which would deem the issue a threat to global security, making non-compliance punishable by sanctions or even military action. Even that may be further than Russia and China are prepared to go. Indeed, US officials have been tamping down expectations of Security Council action, talking instead about assembling a 'coalition of the willing' outside of UN channels to pressure Iran through financial and other measures.
"The 'willing', this time, may not be many. Iran's status as the world's fourth-largest oil exporter will likely preclude significant progress in isolating it — the rising tension between the West and Iran has already been cited as a major factor driving oil prices to record highs. Also, Russia, China and many in Western Europe fear that Washington may be preparing the way for another 'regime-change' intervention in the Middle East, a course of action they'd deem a more immediate danger to global security than anything being cooked up in Iran's nuclear labs."
Gaining international backing for a "regime change" attack on oil-rich Iran, similar to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is the whole purpose of Washington's attempts to get the Security Council to declare Iran's nuclear program a "threat to international peace and security". After the exposure of its lies about Iraq's alleged WMD threat, the White House desperately needs international backing to persuade US public opinion to support military action against Iran.
While the White House, assisted by the uncritical parroting of its propaganda by the US corporate media, has managed to convince most people in the US that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program, there is little public support for military action against Iran. According to a public opinion poll conducted among US residents on April 21 for CNN, 63% of those surveyed urged that only economic and diplomatic efforts be undertaken to counter the alleged Iranian nuclear "threat", while 21% recommended taking no action at all, and 3% expressed no opinion.
From Green Left Weekly, May 3, 2006.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.