“failure to act” by the Security Council, preliminary to an attack on Iran

New Vision
http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/20/497212

Iran: Burning the bridges

Sunday, 7th May, 2006

Gwynne Dyer - Eagle-eyed Columnist analyses global issues

THE draft resolution on Iran’s nuclear activities that the United States, Britain and France presented to the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday is designed to fail. By making it a Chapter Seven resolution (one that is mandatory under international law and can be enforced by sanctions or even by military action), the authors have guaranteed that it will ultimately face a veto by Russia and China, neither of which is convinced that such extreme measures are necessary.

They are not necessary, but this resolution burns the bridges on further negotiations (not that the US was willing to talk directly to Iran anyway), and there have been heavy hints in Washington of military action against Iran. If President Bush follows the same path that he took into Iraq, a “failure to act” by the Security Council is the necessary preliminary to an attack on Iran. Such an attack would make no military sense, but American foreign policy is still in the hands of neo-conservatives whose mantra used to be that “the boys go to Baghdad, the men go to Tehran.”

Even if Iran does intend to build nuclear weapons eventually, there is no urgency. As Robert Joseph, US undersecretary of state for arms control, said in March, the US intelligence community believes that Iran is “five to 10 years away from a nuclear weapons capability.”

Attacking Iran is also a military nightmare for American strategic planners: former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke pointed out last month that the Clinton administration also contemplated a bombing campaign in the late 1990s, but “after a long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favourably for the United States.”

Tehran fails to comply, there will still need to be a follow-up resolution regarding whether there will be military sanctions. Of course, why do we have any real faith that the U.S. will do anything other than what the Chimperator's handlers want to do?

moral and 'legitimate' authority to start bombing us in a pre-emptive action (using current neocon rationale). We have nukes, we have WMDs, we are a belligerent nation, and as the whole world knows, the clowns running the show get off on killing innocent civilians in barbaric exercises that they give disgusting names to i.e. 'Shock and Awe'.

Any little guy who whispers against us is going to be hit by shock and awe. You know, pre-emptive strikes to keep us Supremos.

of a 13 year old Iraqi boy. My mind is seared by him.

There was no reason, no justification. We just did it.

But we dont have Colbert Iron balls, so forget that route. :)