Should Iran be Referred to the UN Security Council?
The UN's chief nuclear inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, is calling on Iran to freeze nuclear fuel production for up to 10 years as a way of defusing the escalating confrontation between Iran and the west.
As the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency met in emergency session yesterday to debate sending the Iranian dispute to the UN security council in New York, Dr ElBaradei, the IAEA chief, said there was "no urgency" for Iran to embark on enriching uranium and said Tehran had a "window of opportunity" over the next few weeks for stepping back from a showdown with the west. (The Guardian)
Western hypocrisy reaches unprecedented heights when it comes to Iran's nuclear program.
There is of course no reason why Iran shouldn't be allowed to pursue nuclear energy for civilian use, or military use for that matter. Although Iran categorically denies its nuclear ambitions stretch to eventually acquiring the Bomb, it's reasonable to assume this is their long term goal. But experts agree that in unsupervised conditions it would take 5 - 10 years of development for Iran to achieve that target. And then there's the small problem of delivery:
Today, Iran’s handful of inaccurate, 1,200km range Shahab-3 missiles can barely reach Israel, and have only non-nuclear conventional warheads. To say Iran somehow threatens the world is a gross lie.
And by eventually acquiring nuclear weapons, does that mean that Iran will want to use them, any more than that other rogue "nuclear state" Israel, or India and Pakistan for that matter? When was the last time Iran undertook an offensive war against another state? Let me see...
As of early 2000 a total of 187 states were Parties to the NPT. Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan were the only states that were not members of the NPT.
Really, think about it, what do you get for developing nuclear weapons and not being a signatory to the NPT, like Israel, Pakistan and India? A pat on the back and a membership card of the nuclear club.
Wouldn't Iran's nuclear capability restore the nuclear balance with its arch enemy Israel, in a Devil's pact of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), Cold War style? For over 40 years that was the official NATO-Warsaw pact doctrine but somehow that can't apply to the Israel/Iran situation.
The argument that Iran has publicly declared to want to wipe Israel of the map is also a non-starter: such threats have been retracted just as often. Besides, if anyone has the capability to reduce Tehran to a pile of smouldering radioactive rubble, it's Israel: they have the nukes and IBMs to deliver them. Calls for nuking Iran back to a radioactive form of the Stone Age are rife amongst conservative bloggers for instance.
And is it so hard to understand that Iran's population shows a nationalistic knee-jerk reaction when it comes to defending their right to civilian nuclear activity when this country is effectively surrounded by countries that have been occupied by US/UK troops (Iraq and Afghanistan) or Western allies (India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia)? In fact it is surrounded by states armed with nuclear weapons: Israel, Pakistan, India and Russia...
The UK is soon to embark on a mightily expensive process to upgrade its nuclear arsenal to state of the art post-Cold War status. Should any nation in the world protest this, we would see an equally nationalistic "hands-off-our-nukes" reaction in our own country.
Keywords: Iran, NPT, nuclear, UN, Security Council