ByKenneth R.Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com |August 31, 2006
Expect a sigh and a whimpertoday at the United Nations when the International Atomic EnergyAgency reports, as expected, that Iran has failed to comply with UNSecurity Council Resolution 1696.
But that doesn’tmean there won’t be a UN sanctions resolution on Iran. TheState Department insists – all press speculation to thecontrary – that sanctions will be approved, even if it takesthree more weeks to get agreement on the details. “There is noPlan B,” as one official put it.
¬Ý
The question remains:will those sanctions have any bite? That is far less certain.
¬Ý
One reason for thestone-faced optimism at Foggy Bottom is thelanguage of UN Security Council Resolution1696, which set theAugust 31 deadline for Iran to comply with UN demands.
¬Ý
Given the war inLebanon, the fact that the Security Council actually passed aresolution to restrain Iran’s nuclear development program atthe height of summer could be considered a near miracle.
¬Ý
Even more surprising:as written, UNSC resolution 1696 is a block of concrete compared tothe normal mush that comes out of the UN. For that, we can thank theU.S. ambassador to the UN (and my fellow Nobel Peace prize nomineefor 2006), John Bolton.
¬Ý
The resolution makesmincemeat out of Iran’s argument that it has a “right”to nuclear technology, by demanding that Iran “suspend allenrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including researchand development,” in a manner “to be verified by theIAEA.”
¬Ý
In paragraph 7 of itsoperative section, it requests that the Director General of the IAEAreport back to the UN by August 31 whether Iran has indeed compliedwith the UN demands. (No suspense there). Then in paragraph 8, itunveils the hammer: “appropriate measures under Article 41 ofChapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to persuade Iran tocomply with this resolution and the requirements of the IAEA&”
¬Ý
Recall thatChapterVII of the UN charterdeals with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, andacts of aggression.” This is where the UN rubber meets theroad. If the UN has any meaning at all, it is spelled out in thispart of the UN charter and in the way the Security council enforcesit.
Even for UN-skeptics like me, there is something inexorable aboutinvoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter that conjures up thechain-mail clanking of tank treads against asphalt.
¬Ý
Amy Reed, of thecenter-left Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, explains why:“Unlike the IAEA board requests of Iran to suspend suchactivities, this request is not voluntary and is legally-binding.”
¬Ý
In other words, even ifthe French, the Russians and the Chinese whine about imposingsanctions on Iran, they have in fact already agreed to impose themunder 1696.
¬Ý
Sanctions under Article41 could include measures aimed specifically at the leadership inIran, including a ban on travel by high level officials and a freezeof their overseas assets. They could also include any form of “completeor partial interruption of economic relations” with Iran thatwould be mandatory on all UN member states.
¬Ý
But just how extensivea package actually gets approved by the Security Council will dependon that great Belgian contribution to the art of diplomacy: thewaffle.
¬Ý
And there is the rub. “Thegame plan here and the goal here is not to impose sanctions,”State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters on Tuesday. “Thegoal here is to change Iranian behavior.”
¬Ý
Ever since followers ofAyatollah Khomeini – including Iran’s current president,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – seized the U.S. embassy on Nov. 4, 1979and held U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days, the U.S. has attemptedto change the behavior of this regime.
¬Ý
Almost withoutexception, Washington has offered inducements, from secret armsshipments under President Reagan to secret offers of a “comprehensivesettlement” with Iran under President Clinton.
¬Ý
Offering inducements toterrorists is never a good idea. Ask the Israelis, who unilaterallywithdrew from Lebanon in May 2000 as an inducement to Hezbollah torespect Israel’s borders.
¬Ý
It’s an evenworse idea when the terrorists are on the verge of acquiring nuclearweapons capability. For more on Iran’s progress toward thebomb, and how the CIA has failed miserably to understand eventsinside Iran, read theexcellent report just released byRepublican staff of the House Permanent Select Committee onIntelligence.
¬Ý
This is the fatal flawin the State Department’s current strategy, a strategy thatincludes that absolutely incomprehensible error of inviting Iran’sformer president, Mohammad Khatami, to visit the United Statestorally Iran’s legions of lobbyistsagainst the policies of the Bush administration.
¬Ý
It’s nocoincidence that Khatami arrives today, the very day of the UNSecurity Council deadline. If the State Department dismissedAhmadinejad’s joking offer of a live television debate withPresident Bush earlier this week as a “diversion,”perhaps it was because they wanted to focus attention on Khatami’supcoming“dialogue” with Jimmy Carter.(After all, Carter gave us all this mess to begin with).
¬Ý
Instead, the focusshould be on Iran’s misdeeds, its non-stop violation of itsinternational commitments and its double-dare taunting of the UnitedStates.
¬Ý
“Every nation, inevery region, now has a decision to make,” President Bush tolda Joint Session of Congress just nine days after the September 11attacks. “Either you are with us, or you are with theterrorists.”
¬Ý
Those were simple,clear words. Now is not the time to walk away from them, or to letthe State Department waffle.
¬Ý
ClickHere tosupport Frontpagemag.com.