Iran's nuclear deceptions

The BBC reports a development that is as disturbing as it ought to have been predictable:

The UN nuclear watchdog has said it believes Iran is still withholding information on its nuclear programme. In a report, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Tehran's alleged weapons development studies remain a matter of serious concern. It adds that Iran is operating 3,500 centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium, at its plant at Natanz.

I commented the other day that the famed US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear programme explicitly did not consider the question of uranium enrichment. That's some caveat.

The enrichment facility at Natanz was established secretly. We know about it only because, as the BBC notes, Iranian dissidents revealed its existence in 2002. It is not necessary for a civil nuclear programme. Even so, the EU-3 have proposed a compromise (which the Bush administration has accepted) whereby Iran would be able to enrich uranium on the territory of a third party, Russia. Yet the mullahs carry on dissembling and evading UN requirements.

The history of Iran's tergiversations on this issue suggests that the regime will respond to international demands, but only under pressure. If the UN is to be an effective agent of disarmament and the diplomatic resolution of disputes, then it's essential that the members of the Security Council show solidarity and gumption on this. The issue can't be left just to the US and the UK to deal with, as happened with Saddam Hussein's serial flouting of UNSC resolutions. I'm sure those who condemned the American-led intervention in Iraq on the grounds that it lacked explicit authority from the UN Security Council would be the first to agree.

Comments

[Anthony Painter]

Wow. You've mellowed in the last few weeks. I find myself in complete agreement with your final paragraph.

Just as the 'axis of evil' rhetoric proved so disastrous a few years ago, can we now agree that if all the evidence is that Iran will bow to international pressure (as the NIE concluded) that the type of bellicose approach adopted by Mrs Clinton, John McCain, and the current President will be counter-productive?

I'll post on this later: http://www.anthonypainter.co.uk

[Oliver Kamm]

Anthony Painter is alluding to this exchange between us. I'm not clear in what respect my comments three weeks ago are more aggressive than my comments now, but I'm relieved Anthony shares my view that the UNSC must exert pressure on Iran to comply with its international obligations.

[Anthony Painter]

We are in 100% agreement on that.

Anthony

[Anthony Painter]

(that the UNSC must exert pressure on Iran to comply with its international obligations.)

[arnoldo]

Anthony and Oliver
Please feel free to agree with each other that the UNSC must exert pressure on Iran etc.... but don't expect them to actually do anything.
Remember the real meaning of resolution 1441 on Iraq :-
"Show us that you have destroyed all of your WMD, or we'll do absolutely bugger all"

[Oliver Kamm]

That, indeed, is my point. There must be no repetition of the UN's feebleness concerning Saddam's flouting of UNSC resolutions. I'm glad Anthony will convey this message to readers of his column in Tribune.

[Nick Good]

And if they don't comply based on soft pressure; then what?

Here I suspect the two of you, would differ a tad.

[neil craig]

"I'm sure those who condemned the American-led intervention in Iraq on the grounds that it lacked explicit authority from the UN Security Council would be the first to agree."

I'm sure they would. I take it you mean the US & UK should show solidarity with the rest of the council rather than that everybody should show solidarity with the US & UK. That is the problem with coming to an agreement - there has to be give & take on both sides.

How much easier it is just to tell any old lie & start bombing & other war crimes as has been the NATO power's wont.

Unfortunately it does make it so much more difficult for anybody who respects reason & the rule of law, as Russia & China do, to trust anything they say now.

[arnoldo]

Neil Craig's last sentence (tongue in cheek or otherwise) sums up the problem with the UNSC. It is very easy to respect the rule of law if you draw up legislation to suit yourself, without democratic accountability to your population.
When the dictators who represent Russia and China are able to wield the power of veto at the UNSC, you have to ask if the definition of "international law" should in any way include a reference to the Security Council.

[Oliver Kamm]

Neil Craig is a tireless pro-Milosevic bonehead who has been expelled from the Liberal Democrats and whose contributions to Web debate are nicely summarised in comment 60 on this blog. Kindly begone, Sir, before I ban you anyway.

[Ross]

I see that like another of your admirers, Neil Craig is the founder and apparently only member of his own party. Can the 9% Growth Party beat the political juggernaut that is the British People's Alliance?

[lix]

Read and understand what the IAEA report ACTUALLY says at IranAffairs.com rather than relying on the media to lie to you.

[Anthony Painter]

I will writing on this issue at some point Oliver. Probably in the context of the US election.

In the meantime, do you think that ALL UN Security Council resolutions should be enforced?

[Oliver Kamm]

Anthony, I believe that all binding UNSC resolutions should be enforced. As Iran is violating a series of such resolutions, I hope you will write another piece for The Independent's blog, as well as for Tribune, urging tough action against Iran and deploring the conduct of supposedly progressive organisations (e.g. CND) that stand in the way of stiff sanctions.

[Tom A]

lix - who are you talking to and to what "lie" are you referring?

[neil craig]

Ah well Olliver as they say "A man about to speak the truth should keep one foot in the stirrup" as Mr Twain said.

That you feel the need to threaten to ban me shows you know what truths I would speak.

Perhaps mentioning that NATO sarmed, organised & bombed hospitals on behalf of your KLA friends in the sure & certain knowledge that they were openly committed to genocide & engaged in child sex slavery & dissecting living humans to sell their organs to our hospitals. You keep unfortunate company sir.

[Oliver Kamm]

Your self-absorption scales new heights, Mr Craig. The reason I made my request was that you are an abusive xenophobic buffoon. I take it you won't dissent from either of those adjectives, and if you want proof of the noun then you need only refer to your recent display of incomprehension in reading so specialised a source as the NYT. Don't think I failed to notice this, and don't imagine I shall withhold this pearl from a wider audience if you persist in intruding where you are not wanted.

[bustard]

http://newsproject.org/videos/21

[neil craig]

I would dissent from all 3. It takes some dissociation from reality to accuse somebody of both supporting a foreign government against the British & at the same time of "xenophobia".

I note that, like the British media generally, you censor any mention of the atrocities described above by your Nazi friends. Any time you feel up to debating the facts - all the facts - I will be happy to accommodate you.