UN "Green Light" for a Pre-emptive US-Israel Attack on Iran? Security Council Resolution Transforms Iran into a "Sitting Duck"

[Guest]

A sitting duck is a defenceless victim, an easy target, vulnerable to attack" What this latest resolution suggests is that Washington and its NATO allies not only control the UN Security Council, they ultimately also call the shots on foreign policy in Moscow and Beijing.

This Security Council resolution should dispel the myth of competing super powers. Both China and Russia are an appendage of the New World Order. As far as international diplomacy is concerned, both China and Russia are "Paper Tigers", with no teeth. "'Paper Tiger' [纸老虎 (zhǐ lǎohǔ)], meaning something that seems as threatening as a tiger, but is really harmless."

Both China and Russia are the victims of their own failed decisions within the United Nations Security Council. An attack on Iran would immediately lead to military escalation. Syria and Lebanon would also be targeted. The entire Middle East Central Asian region would flare up, a situation which could potentially evolve towards a World War III scenario. In a very real sense, the US-NATO-Israel military adventure threatens the future of humanity.[/left]


The UN Security Council voted on June 9 the imposition of a fourth round of sweeping sanctions against The Islamic Republic of Iran, which include an expanded arms embargo as well "tougher financial controls".

In a bitter irony, this resolution was passed within days of the United Nations Security Council's outright refusal to adopt a motion condemning Israel for its attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters.

It also followed the holding of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference in Washington under UN auspices, which called for the establishment, in its final resolution, of a nuclear free Middle East as well as the dismantling of Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal. Israel is considered to be the World's sixth nuclear power, with, according to Jane Defense, between 100 and 300 nuclear warheads. ( Analysts: Israel viewed as world's 6th nuclear power, Israel News, Ynetnews, April 10, 2010). Iran in contrast has no known nuclear weapons capabilities.

UNSC Resolution 1929 is based on a fundamental falsehood. It upholds the notion that Iran is an upcoming nuclear power and a threat to global security. It also provides a green light to the US-NATO-Israel military alliance to threaten Iran with a pre-emptive punitive nuclear attack, using the UN Security Council as rubber stamp.

The Security Council exercises double standards in the application of sanctions: Whereas Iran is the target of punitive threats, Israel's extensive nuclear arsenal, is either ignored or tacitly accepted by "the international community". For Washington, Israel's nukes are an instrument of peace in the Middle East.

Moreover, whereas all fingers are pointed at Iran which does not possess nuclear weapons, five so-called "non-nuclear" European states including Belgium, Holland, Germany, Italy and Turkey not only possess tactical nuclear weapons under national command, these warheads are deployed and targeted at Iran.

Resolution 1929 (June 9, 2010):

“7. Decides that Iran shall not acquire an interest in any commercial activity in another State involving uranium mining, production or use of nuclear materials and technology as listed in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 1, in particular uranium-enrichment and reprocessing activities, all heavy-water activities or technology-related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and further decides that all States shall prohibit such investment in territories under their jurisdiction by Iran, its nationals, and entities incorporated in Iran or subject to its jurisdiction, or by persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them;

“8. Decides that all States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Iran, from or through their territories or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems .... , decides further that all States shall prevent the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms and related materiel, and, in this context, calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint over the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture and use of all other arms and related materiel;" (Security Council Imposes Additional Sanctions on Iran, Voting 12 in Favour to 2 Against, with 1 Abstention, Includes complete text of UNSC Resolution 1929, UN News, June 9, 2010, emphasis added, )

The Arms Embargo. Implications for Russia and China

Both the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China have caved in to US pressures and voted in favor of a resolution, which is not only detrimental to Iran's security, but which seriously weakens and undermines their strategic role as potential competing World powers on the Eurasian geopolitical chessboard.

The resolution strikes at the very heart of the structure of military alliances. It prevents Russia and China to sell both strategic and conventional weapons and military technology to their de facto ally: Iran. In fact, that was one of major objectives of Resolution 1929, which Washington is intent upon enforcing.

At the same time, by barring Iran from purchasing conventional military equipment, the resolution prevents Iran from defending itself from a US-NATO-Israel attack.

The resolution, were it to be fully enforced, would not only invalidate ongoing bilateral military cooperation agreements with Iran, it would create a wedge in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

It would also significantly weaken trade and investment relations between Iran and its Russian and Chinese partners. The financial and banking provisions in the resolution also point to Washington's resolve to not only isolate Iran but also to destabilize its financial system.

Washington is intent upon enforcing this resolution. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has appointed Robert Einhorn, Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control, as U.S. coordinator for the implementation of the sanctions regime directed against both Iran and North Korea:.

"U.S. President Barack Obama hailed the resolution, saying it will put in place the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government and send an "unmistakable message" to Tehran about the international community's commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons."(Clinton appoints coordinator for sanctions against Iran, DPRK, Xinhua, June 10, 2010

"We expect every country to aggressively implement Resolution 1929" said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. Were China and Russia to decide not to abide by the resolution's provisions, particularly those relating to weapons sales to Iran (art. , Washington would use this as an opportunity to engage in an increasingly confrontational diplomacy in relation to Beijing and Moscow.

The resolution is also intended to establish a US led hegemony in the production and export of advanced weapons systems. It is is heavy blow, almost a "death sentence", for China and Russia's lucrative international weapons trade, which competes with the US, UK, France, Germany and Israel. In the post-Soviet era, the arms trade has become a central component of Russia's fragile economy. The potential repercussions on Russia's balance of payments are far-reaching.

Disabling Iran's Missile Defence System

UN Security Council resolutions are an integral part of US foreign policy. They are on the drawing board of Washington's think tanks, including the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation. In this regard, it is worth noting that the substance of article 8 of UNSC Resolution 1929 (June 9, 2010 was contained in a January 2010 report of the Heritage Foundation, which calls for "blocking arms sales to Iran" including Russia's S-300 missiles:

"Washington and its allies should make every effort to deprive Iran of foreign arms transfers, particularly the impending sale of Russian S-300 surface to air missiles, which could provoke Israel to strike sooner rather than later. Stronger multinational efforts also need to be made to prevent Iran from trans­ferring arms to Hezbollah and Palestinian terror­ist groups, which pose a threat not only to Israel, but to stability in Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan. On November 3, Israeli naval forces intercepted the Francop, an Antigua-flagged cargo ship that was transporting about 500 tons of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah, via Syria.[22] The U.S. should press other allies to join in giving greater assistance to Israeli efforts to intercept Iranian arms flows, particularly to Hezbollah and Hamas." (James Phillips, An Israeli Preventive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Sites: Implications for the U.S, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, January 2010)

Did Moscow assess the implications of the proposed arms embargo?

Immediately following the adoption of the UNSC resolution on June 9th, several Russian press reports indicated that the sale of Russian S-300 missiles to Iran would be frozen, despite assurances by foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that the UNSC resolution would not affect the air-defence deal..(Russia says in talks with Iran on new nuclear plants, Haaretz, June 10, 2010) These contradictory statements suggest that there are significant divisions within the Russian leadership, without which Russia would have duly exercised its veto power in the UN Security Council.

Russia's S-300 Surface to Air Missile

Without Russian military aid, Iran is a "sitting duck". Its air defence system depends on continued Russian military cooperation. Moreover, without Iran, Russia would be constrained to selling military equipment to countries in the US-NATO orbit. (See Russia to offset loss of Iran arms sales with Iraqi, Afghan deals, Russia, RIA Novosti, June 11, 2010)

Pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran

The World is at dangerous crossroads. The real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance. The UN Security Council directly serves the interests of the Western military alliance. The Security Council resolution grants a de facto "green light" to wage a pre-emptive war against Iran, which has been on the Pentagon's drawing board since 2004.

"An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006). In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency plan", which would "include a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).

Under the Obama administration, the threats have become increasingly pervasive and far more explicit than under the NeoCons. In October 2009, The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) organized an Event at Washington's Wohlstetter Conference Center on "Should Israel Attack Iran?":

"Iran's nuclear weapons development continues apace, threatening the security of its neighbors and the international community. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, more than 60 percent of the American public believes preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons warrants military action. Israel's deputy foreign minister, Daniel Ayalon, emphasized on September 21 that Israel has “not taken any option off the table” when it comes to countering the Iranian threat. The same day, Israel's top general, chief of staff Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, made it clear that he would not rule out a military strike on Iran's nuclear installations, repeating that "Israel has the right to defend itself and all options are on the table." As the debate intensifies over how to respond most effectively to Iran's provocations, it is timely to explore the strategic and legal parameters of a potential Israeli strike against the Islamic Republic and provide some thorough analysis about implications for the United States. (American Enterprise Institute, Should Israel Attack Iran?, October 2009, emphasis added)

From a military standpoint, Israel could not undertake a unilateral attack on Iran without the active coordination of the Pentagon:.

"As President Obama extends “an open hand”, seeking direct talks with Tehran in his attempt to halt its nuclear programme, Mrs Clinton appeared [June 2009] ready to unnerve the Iranian leadership with talk of a pre-emptive strike “the way that we did attack Iraq”. She said that she was trying to put herself in the shoes of the Iranian leadership, but added that Tehran “might have some other enemies that would do that [deliver a pre-emptive strike] to them”. It was a clear reference to Israel, where Binyamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, has talked about the possibility of military action to halt Iran’s nuclear programme — something he views as a threat to the Jewish state. ( Don’t discount Israel pre-emptive strike, Hillary Clinton warns Iran, Times Online, June 8, 2009, emphasis added)

In April 2010 the message was crystal clear: Washington "would use atomic weapons only in 'extreme circumstances' and would not attack non-nuclear states, but singled out "outliers" Iran and North Korea as exceptions." ( Iran to Take US to UN Over Obama's Threat to Use Nuclear Weapons against Iran, AlJazeera, April 11, 2010). Defence Secretary Robert Gates explained in a television interview "that Washington was making exceptions of Tehran and Pyongyang because they had defied repeated UN Security Council ultimatums over their nuclear programmes." (Ibid).

UN "Green Light" for a World War Three Scenario?

Is this latest Security Council resolution "the green light" which Washington has been seeking?

The substance of the Security Council resolution is also directed at Iran allies: China and Russia.

Ironically, while China and Russia failed to exercise their veto power, they are nonetheless the object of veiled US threats. China is surrounded by US military facilities. US missiles in Poland and the Caucasus are pointed towards Russian cities. More recently, the Obama administration has called for the extension of the sanctions regime directed against Russia's ally, Belarus.

Washington has also announced that "The Pentagon is preparing to embark on a mini-building boom in Central Asia, which would include the construction of strategic US facilities military "in all five Central Asian states, including Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan." (See Defense Dollars Building Boom: Pentagon Looks to Construct New Military Bases in Central Asia, Eurasianet, June 6, 2010). These various military cooperation agreements with former Soviet republics are not only intent upon weakening the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the CSTO, they are part of the US-NATO strategic encirclement of Russia and China.

What this latest resolution suggests is that Washington and its NATO allies not only control the UN Security Council, they ultimately also call the shots on foreign policy in Moscow and Beijing.

This Security Council resolution should dispel the myth of competing super powers. Both China and Russia are an appendage of the New World Order.

As far as international diplomacy is concerned, both China and Russia are "Paper Tigers", with no teeth. "'Paper Tiger' [纸老虎 (zhǐ lǎohǔ)], meaning something that seems as threatening as a tiger, but is really harmless."

Both China and Russia are the victims of their own failed decisions within the United Nations Security Council.

An attack on Iran would immediately lead to military escalation. Syria and Lebanon would also be targeted. The entire Middle East Central Asian region would flare up, a situation which could potentially evolve towards a World War III scenario.

In a very real sense, the US-NATO-Israel military adventure threatens the future of humanity.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research

[Guest]

he recent UN Security Council resolution slapping new sanctions on Iran is likely to become the worst defeat suffered by the Russian diplomacy over the past years. Its negative impact may be persistent and more serious than that of the proclamation of Kosovo's independence to which Russia continues objecting. What we are witnessing seems to be an unexpected recurrence of the syndrome of unilateral concessions to the West which eroded Russia's international politics, especially its Balkan part, in the 1990ies. Following the Western lead in dealing with Iran, Russia is risking to lose both its positions in a region much more extensive than the Balkans and its hard-earned key role in the raising multipolar world.

Commenting on the vote in the UN Security Council (where Russia's BRIC peer Brazil and NATO member Turkey voted against the sanctions), the influential Tehran Times wrote: “The fact that Turkey and Brazil, two U.S. allies, voted against the resolution provides further proof that the actions against Iran and the latest decision of the Security Council are based on secret deals struck by the major powers. Thus, those who say the U.S. abandoned its Eastern European missile shield plan in order to win the support of Russia were probably correct”.

In 2009, the Russian foreign ministry was on a number of occasions forced to deny that — as Western media kept suggesting — there existed a «missile defense for Iran» swap deal. Indeed, it probably did not exist as a formalized agreement, but the truth is that at a certain moment Russia adopted a much tougher stance on Iran and froze its arms transactions with the country (suspending the supply of the S-300 air defense systems), as well as that currently Moscow risks loosing its strategic partner in the Middle East without any visible reasons for such sacrifice. Can the invisible reason be an obscure deal with US President B. Obama?

Recent developments signal a complicated array of shifts in the region and outside of it. The mediation successfully undertaken by Turkey and Brazil in the talks over the enrichment of Iran's uranium stockpile outside of the country, the escalation in the Middle East, the tensions between Turkey and Israel, new geopolitical maneuvers around the Karabakh settlement and related energy projects (in which Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan, the country with a special position, are to play the key roles) altogether confront the US with the threat of isolation and loss of leadership. As for Iran, it is no secret that the three rounds of sanctions imposed on the country in 2006-2008 failed to undermine its capability to implement a nuclear program, which has become an element of the Iranian national identity. There are no indications that the situation is going to change from Iran's perspective this time.

The situation is going to change from Russia's perspective, though, and certainly for the worse. Loosing Iran, demonstratively distancing itself from the Turkish-Brazilian mediation (for which President Medvedev expressed support previously), and siding with the US Moscow put in jeopardy the political gains of the recent years such as independence and assertiveness in international politics and the clarity of geopolitical priorities. Voting for new sanctions and constructing the nuclear power plant in Bushehr at the same time is an example of the very double standards that Moscow justly rebelled against whenever it encountered them in Western policies.

Russia evidently tried to recoup some of its geopolitical losses immediately after the vote in the UN Security Council. Russia's foreign ministry promptly posted an extensive comment saying: “However, we can’t ignore the signals indicating that some partners intend, almost immediately after the decision in New York, to move to considering additional sanctions against Iran, more stringent than those provided by the UNSC resolution. We regard this as the manifestation of a policy that runs counter to the principles of joint work within the Six and the UNSC format. Unacceptable to us are attempts in such a way to place oneself “above” the Security Council. We also categorically reject any national decisions on the imposition of “extraterritorial sanctions,” i.e., restrictive measures under one’s own legislation with regard to individuals and legal entities in third countries. Such decisions, should they affect Russian legal entities or individuals, would entail retaliatory response by us.

The new resolution leaves extensive room for further cooperation with Iran in the trade and economic field and on energy, transport and peaceful space exploration. As applied to Russian-Iranian bilateral ties, all of these areas have significant potential and growth opportunities. Of fundamental importance for us is the further development of cooperation with Iran in the construction of light water reactors”.

The arguments seem OK but still reek of an attempt to save face. It is unlikely that the US and the EU, overwhelmed with gratitude to Russia, will in the future show greater respect for its interests or adapt to the Russian foreign ministry's position on Iran. The Russian diplomacy's pledges to go on cooperating with Iran would have been more credible if Russia at least abstained during the UN Security Council vote, as, for example, did Lebanon.

Washington pursued its own interests without exceptions throughout the Russian-US debates over Iran. Obama's decision against deploying missile defense infrastructures in Poland and the Czech Republic was predictable due to purely economic regards and did not take Russia's consent to sanctions against Iran. In fact, the missile defense program is still on but will employ more advanced technologies ensuring radar surveillance over a greater area. In the foreseeable future Russia will be confronted with an evasive network of mobile systems instead of two undisguised stationary installations. The Persian Gulf zone and the Black Sea region will be given key roles in the framework of the initiative. It did not go unnoticed that the US Administration carefully avoided linking any of the provisions of the New Start treaty with the state of the US missile defense program.

The most alarming aspect of the current situation is the analogy it invokes with the 1990-ies — early 2000i-es Balkan developments. In that epoch Russia also demanded on the formal level that all sides in the Balkan conflicts equally abide by the international law, called for compromises, and voted for sanctions in the UN Security Council, holding that this was the only way to stop escalations. The overall result was progressing imbalance in the Balkan and broader European security architecture. The norms declared were supposed to be mandatory for all nations, but the Serbs invariably ended up disadvantaged. The format of the international contact group which handled Balkan crises is frighteningly similar to that currently employed in dealing with Iran (the six-party talks). Russia was defeated in the five-party talks on Kosovo when it consented to the so-called three principles, one of them being that the situation should not revert to the 1999 condition. The provision was eventually used by the proponents of Kosovo independence to justify its unilateral declaration.

Now Russian envoys quite reasonably blame the UN and its Secretary General for being either reluctant or unable to address the Kosovo problem and charge the EU and the US with bias and unilateralism. But isn't the West demonstrating bias and acting unilaterally when it consents to the nuclear statuses of India and Pakistan, shields Israel from criticism over its nuclear program, but keeps pushing for ever tighter sanctions to be imposed on Iran?

The Balkan settlement has shown the inadequacy of international negotiating formats like five-party or six-party talks and the pointless character of UN discussions. In practice, the West relies entirely on its own mechanisms to promote its own geopolitical interests. Russia chose to be on the side of the US and the EU instead of strengthening its commercial ties with Iran (including the Caspian Sea delimitation and the energy projects), involving countries with unbiased positions in the talks over the Iranian nuclear dossier, and supporting the independent and successful mediation contributed by Turkey and Brazil. Will the US and the EU return the favor — for example, in the form of concessions in Kosovo, Caucasus, or energy politics? Based on the Balkan experience, it is clear that they will not.

By Petr Iskenderov