|
Bush’s Roadblock at the Security Council
By Mike Whitney
03/13/06 "ICH"
-- -- Surveys were conducted months before the war on
Iraq which showed that the American people would only support the
conflict if there was a danger that Saddam was developing nuclear
weapons. Other questions in the poll addressed the issues of
humanitarian intervention, Saddam’s abysmal human rights record, and
the prospect that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological
weapons.
None of these other potential threats mattered to the American
people. The only issue that gained majority support for war was
whether Saddam had nukes. It’s obvious now that the findings of that
poll became the cornerstone of the administration’s public relations
strategy.
Bottom line: The Bush-Cheney plans for shaping public opinion will
continue to depend on bogus claims about nuclear weapons programs.
This explains why the administration and their agents in the MSM are
intentionally misleading the public about the true nature of Iran’s
nuclear program; it is the only way to elicit support for another
war of aggression.
This also explains the furor over the Niger uranium fabrication
which discredited the administration and resulted in the “outing” of
Valerie Plame and the “swift-boating” of Joe Wilson. Cheney knew
that the nuclear-link was crucial to hoodwinking the American people
and could not allow Wilson to expose his lies.
The very same strategy is being used to demonize Iran. The IAEA has
repeatedly said that there is “no evidence of a nuclear weapons
program”, and yet, the administration continues to mislead public
without a shred of proof to the contrary.
In the last week, the United States has had at least two
opportunities to resolve the standoff through peaceful means.
Instead, they torpedoed both deals and intensified the belligerence.
Why?
It was astonishing to watch Condi Rice hit the panic-button as soon
as Iran’s foreign-minister offered to give up “industrial
enrichment” of uranium if the IAEA would refrain from bringing the
case before the Security Council. This was a “huge” concession on
the part of Iran. They were giving up their legal rights under the
treaty (NPT) and asking for nothing in return!
Condi’s reaction?
She called IAEA chief ElBaradei straight away insisting that,” The
US cannot support this!”
Cannot support what? Negotiation? Deliberation? Peace?
The State Dept made no attempt to explore the Iranian offer or see
whether it would lead to greater concessions. It was simply
dismissed outright.
It’s not hard to figure out what that means as far as the chances
for peace.
The State Dept reacted the same way earlier in the week when Russia
and Iran were working out the details for enriching uranium outside
of the country as a “confidence building” measure. Once again, State
Dept. officials immediately rejected the “good faith” offer without
pursuing further negotiations.
The obvious implication is that Washington wants another war and
will subvert any attempt at negotiation or diplomacy.
What else could it mean?
Today’s headlines are reiterating the same hogwash: “Iran Spurns
Russian Proposal” (SF Chronicle) or “Iran Ruling out Russia in
Nuclear Plan” (CNN) or “Iran Rejects Russian offer to Diffuse
Nuclear Dispute” (NY Times). This is how the media uses the
corporate-bullhorn to create the impression that Iran is being
“defiant”.
Baloney.
True, Iran has maintained throughout that they will not concede
their rights under the treaty (NPT) but they have limited their
demands to small amounts of uranium in a research and development
program to be overseen by the IAEA inspection team.
Who could object to that?
The media has deliberately misled the public about the Russian
negotiations as well as who was responsible for their ultimate
failure. The New York Times, however, summarizes it the best in
their March 13 article by Nazila Fathi:
“Russia had offered to enrich uranium for Iran for use for energy
purposes if Iran would refrain from doing so. It made a last minute
face-saving offer to allow Iran to continue some enrichment for
research purposes but withdrew the offer under Western pressure.”
“Western pressure”?
What the Times means is that Russia “withdrew the offer under United
States pressure”, because Bush and company have no intention of
allowing ANY settlement to take place no matter how conciliatory or
personally-compromising.
But didn’t Iran’s foreign minister say that “The Russian deal is no
longer on the agenda”?
Yes and no.
Iran said that it wants to see what the Security Council does before
they make any more decisions. As for the precise statement by Iran’s
foreign minister:
“As for the Russian proposal, if it considers Iran’s right to
conduct research in Iran on its own soil, it can be a topic of
negotiation, because the right to conduct research in Iran is the
Islamic Republic’s right that we neither want to give up nor will
give up”.
Hamid Reza Asefi’s statement is a straightforward defense of the
basic terms of the treaty (NPT) a treaty to which the United States
is also a signatory and has clear obligations. Should Asefi simply
toss the “internationally-approved” treaty on the burn-pile because
it no longer fits within the Bush administration’s foreign policy
strategy?
Yes, according to Bush.
The media’s role in demonizing Iran cannot be overstated, nor can we
really appreciate the extent of US recalcitrance without following
the minutia of daily statements and demands. The United States has
elevated the issue of Iran’s imaginary nuclear weapons program to
crisis level. We must assume that its part of the broader scheme to
incite violence and spread the Iraq war throughout the region.
Total war?
Isn’t that where all this bluster and harassment is headed?
But will the Bush administration be able to win UN Security Council
approval for their war plans? Will there be sanctions?
No! No sanctions and no resolution condemning Iran’s program.
The New York Times reported on Friday that, “A draft document, which
the Council members have indicated they hope to issue next week as a
nonbinding presidential statement, says the Council continues to
hope for a negotiated solution ‘that guarantees Iran’s nuclear
program is for exclusively peaceful purposes.”
“A nonbinding presidential statement”?
This is what we have been saying here for months and now the NY
Times is reluctantly confirming it. There are no grounds for
“punitive action” because Iran is not in “noncompliance”. The entire
matter has only reached this level of attention because the
inordinate amount of raw power and arm-twisting the US can bring to
bear in foreign affairs.
“A nonbinding presidential statement” is the equivalent of saying,
“We have no proof that you are doing anything illegal, but we will
scold you anyway”.
It is an empty statement which has no legal precedent or authority
and infers nothing about violations to the NPT. It is strictly a
gratuitous proclamation designed to placate the war-mongering
occupants of the Bush White House.
The Bush administration has no proof that Iran has violated the
terms of its treaty.
The IAEA has no proof that Iran has violated the terms of its
treaty.
The UN Security Council has no proof that Iran has violated the
terms of its treaty.
The whole fiasco has been orchestrated to deceive the public and
pave the way for war.
Click below to read or post comment's on this article
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
