July 29, 2006

Almost two months ago, when European Union Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana presented an incentives package to Iran to encourage the Islamic Republic to curb its nuclear activities, I wrote a column questioning what, if anything, the world community would do in the event that Iran rejected the proposal. In that column, I argued that Iran, in responding that the package of incentives required further study, was probably stalling for time while it continued its program without international oversight.

Responding to the August 22nd date put forth by the Iranian government for a formal reply to the package, many countries, including the United States and Great Britain, declared the date unacceptable, citing a maximum period of weeks, rather than months, for Iran to agree to suspend the enrichment of uranium and join in multilateral talks about its nuclear future.

However, the international community, in the form of the United Nations, has been unable to reach an agreement on the course of action to be pursued in order to press Iran on its nuclear ambitions. We are now at the end of July and the only thing that has been accomplished to date is a draft resolution requiring Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities by the end of August or face possible sanctions. Iranian state radio is already reporting that such a resolution will be rejected and Iran will not be subject to international demands.

In setting a deadline, the members of the Security Council are seeking to send the message that they are united and they are serious. But as history has repeatedly shown us, rarely are the five permanent members of the Council anything close to resembling united, or serious.

Time and again, the United States, Great Britain, China, France and Russia find themselves at odds over competing economic and security interests. Just the threat of a veto can stall action and prevent a matter from ever coming to a vote before the Council. Consensus on serious matters is seldom achieved, and I expect more of the same with regard to the Iranian nuclear program.

There is little reason to expect the Iranian regime to accept the proposal to stop their nuclear agenda. The leadership in Tehran knows what everyone else knows, that there is little likelihood of any meaningful sanctions coming out of the Security Council, and there is absolutely no possibility of a resolution authorizing military action against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Which brings us back to the original question. What if Iran rejects the package of incentives and continues its uranium enrichment program, effectively telling the rest of the world to mind its own business and stop infringing on Iran’s national rights?

The United Nations will inevitably bog down in its own incompetence and no significant agreement among the permanent members will be reached. A nuclear-armed Iranian regime is a threat to the entire region, a threat that Israel cannot ignore. Will Prime Minister Olmert authorize a strike similar to the Israeli attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981? Even if he wanted to, he would probably be restrained by the United States government in the interest of preventing further destabilization in the area.

Will the United States and Great Britain take matters into their own hands, either through sanctions or military action? Independently enforced sanctions are probably a safe bet, but direct military action is not likely. The Anglo-American alliance is working diligently with the Iranians in an attempt to quell the violence in Iraq by putting pressure on the Shiite militias that are engaging in the recent surge in sectarian fighting.

While the United States and England are certainly capable of executing a military strike against Iranian targets, despite concerns about their commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, such a use of force would do more to increase tensions in the Middle East than it would to alleviate those tensions. A military strike would only add to the anti-American and anti-British sentiment in a region already torn apart by hatred and violence.

The end result is likely to be some form of accommodation on the nuclear program, with a promise of additional influence on Iraqi Shiites from the Iranian regime, along with some form of international monitoring of Iranian nuclear progress. In exchange, western nations will fulfill their pledges in the incentives package, including easing current sanctions, assisting with WTO membership, and upgrading the Iranian air fleet.

That will set the stage for more negotiations and more concessions from both sides. But in the end, I fear that we will see a radical regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel and a sworn enemy of the United States in possession of nuclear weapons. As long as the international community lacks the will to come together in the face of real threats, we should all be concerned about what happens if Iran says no.

August 7, 2006

In a September 2002 speech to the UN General Assembly, President Bush asked a pointed and crucially important question to the national representatives who had gathered to hear him talk about the looming war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq: Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant? The current impasse over Iran’s nuclear ambitions may soon provide the answer to the President’s question.

Almost immediately after the passing of a UN Security Council resolution demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities by the end of August, state radio services began reporting that the Council’s demands would be rejected. On August 1, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad officially denounced the resolution, insisting that Tehran was committed to its pursuit of nuclear technology and would not be bullied by threats from the UN. Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Ari Larijani, went a step further, calling the UN resolution “illegal” and boasting that Iran would not only defy the Council’s wishes, but would increase its uranium enrichment activities as well.

There are two problems with Iran’s “right” to pursue nuclear technology: the lack of transparency provided by the hard-line government and the threat posed by the Iranian regime itself. Both require the global community to confront Iran over its nuclear program.

Lack of transparency has been a decades-long dilemma. Iran has consistently shrouded its nuclear plans in secrecy, and UN inspectors have repeatedly been blocked from access to sites and personnel involved in nuclear work. While Iran’s ambassador to the UN claims his country’s nuclear advances are no threat to peace and security in the world, the actions of his government make it impossible to determine the intent and scope of nuclear progress. Without access to key atomic facilities and players, there can be no credible assurances that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful energy production and not for the development of nuclear weapons.

But none of this is should be a surprise. The very nature of the regime is itself a threat to other nations. The government is headed by a radical former member of the Revolutionary Guard who never misses an opportunity to call for the destruction of Israel, or to spew hateful rhetoric about the United States and the West. Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism with ties to Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Palestine Liberation Organization. The regime continually exerts its influence among Shiites in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territories, decreasing stability in the Middle East while Iran tries to better its geopolitical position. The Iranian government deals harshly with dissent at home and uses international terror to increase its power relative to other Arab nations and the West.

Iran is a nation that must be dealt with, and soon. There can be no mistake about Ahmadinejad’s quest for nuclear power and regional influence. He does not take the United Nations seriously because he has repeatedly been witness to the futility of the Security Council when confronted with matters of grave importance. He has rejected the UN’s call to halt his country’s enrichment of uranium because he believes the five permanent members of the Council will never come to an agreement on either meaningful sanctions or the use of military force.

By setting a deadline, the Security Council has drawn its line in the sand. If Iran fails to stop uranium enrichment activities by the end of August, the Council will convene once more to discuss options for dealing with Ahmadinejad’s regime. But don’t count on anything significant coming out of the Security Council’s meetings. Two of the permanent five are already wavering, with both the Chinese and Russian envoys downplaying the threat of sanctions immediately after the passing of the resolution. According to the Washington Post, the Russian and Chinese representatives say the main goal of the resolution was to encourage Iran to resume negotiations and to support the efforts by UN nuclear experts to obtain greater cooperation from Tehran.

Sadly, this type of political backtracking is typical of Security Council deliberations and a major reason why the United Nations is largely ineffective on global security issues. Countries initially stand together behind generic statements that foster the perception of cooperation, but coalitions quickly fracture when the strategic and economic interests of individual nations outweigh the importance of consensus for the greater global good. Inevitably, the UN will bog down yet again in the face of Iranian nuclear development.

Ahmadinejad sees what President Bush sees: that the weakness of the United Nations ultimately means UN resolutions can be defied without consequence. If the UN fails to come together now, when global peace and security are threatened by a potentially nuclear-armed terrorist regime dedicated to the destruction of the West, it will once again demonstrate to the world that its member nations cannot fulfill its founding purpose. It will become, as President Bush warned, irrelevant.