WASHINGTON, April 30, 2006 (IslamOnline.net & News
Agencies) Seeking to forge a unified stance against Iran, the Bush
administration is increasingly resorting to the same diplomatic rhetoric
it used in the run-up to the Iraq war, invoking the "coalition of the
willing," "UN credibility" and "weapons of mass destruction"
clichés.
Nearly four years after President George W. Bush warned the
UN it risked becoming "irrelevant" unless it dealt with Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein, his administration is billing the showdown with Iran as a
new test of UN mettle, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported Sunday, April
30.
"Iran is openly challenging the United Nations," deputy State
Department spokesman Adam Ereli said on Friday, April 28.
"That challenge should have consequences in order to sustain
and to reinforce the credibility of the UN as an institution."
In a report to the UN Security Council on Friday,
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei said
Tehran had failed to heed calls to stop enriching uranium.
Iran confirmed on Saturday, April 29, it was ready to
re-allow snap UN atomic inspections if its case was dropped by the UN
Security Council and passed back to the UN nuclear watchdog.
"Like-minded Nations"
Faced with stubborn resistance from veto-wielding Security
Council members Russia and China to punitive measures against Iran, the US
is working on an alternative to UN action as it did for Iraq.
Back then it was a "coalition of the willing" rising up
against Saddam; now it's a group of "like-minded nations" determined to
keep Iran's nuclear ambitions in check.
The US is encouraging countries to consider their own
sanctions against Tehran, such as a cutoff of trade, an embargo on sales
of sensitive materiel, or asset freezes and travel restrictions on Iranian
leaders.
"It's not beyond the realm of the possible that at some point
in the future a group of countries could get together if the Security
Council is not able to act," said Undersecretary of State Nicholas
Burns.
"That's important because those that might prevent the
Security Council from acting effectively need to understand that the
international community has to find a way and will find a way to express
our displeasure with the Iranians."
Except for its chief ally the United Kingdom, the US failed
to drum up support for a military action against Baghdad from world
heavyweights like France and Germany, which insisted on a UN resolution
first.
Now the US is pressing hard for a new "chapter seven"
Security Council resolution that would open the way for sanctions and, in
theory, military action.
"We do think there's a sense of urgency here and we hope that
we can get council action just as soon as possible," US Ambassador to the
UN John Bolton said Friday.
Military Option
![]() |
|
"The right to self-defense does
not necessarily require a UN Security Council resolution," said
Rice.
|
Underpinning US diplomacy is the always-present threat
of force, if not to topple the Iranian regime then to strike at its
nuclear facilities.
While publicly committed to a diplomatic track, the US
has consistently refused to take the military option off the table and has
sharpened its tone in recent weeks.
Before the US-led invasion of Iraq, President Bush
insisted that diplomacy had not been yet exhausted to opt for a military
action.
Bush, speaking in the Rose Garden after the release of
the IAEA report, said he is not discouraged by the failure of diplomatic
pressure on Iran.
"I think the diplomatic options are just beginning,"
he said, adding that "the world is united and concerned" about Iran's
nuclear program.
In a speech in Chicago on April 19, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice raised echoes of the Bush administration's readiness to
go-it-alone if necessary that put it at odds with many US allies at the
outset of the war in Iraq.
"The right to self-defense does not necessarily
require a UN Security Council resolution," she said.
"We are prepared to use measures at our disposal --
political, economic or others -- to persuade Iran."
Bush threatened in an interview with the Israeli
television on August 13 he could consider using force to press Iran to
give up its nuclear program.
"The use of force is the last option for any president
and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country,"
he said in a clear reference to the Iraq war.
US veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said
in a report earlier this month that the administration is looking
"seriously" at striking Iran with tactical nuclear weapons.
Terror Card
The Bush administration is also playing the terror
card in its standoff with Tehran.
The State Department's annual report on terrorism
worldwide, released on Friday, described Iran as the world's most active
sponsors of terrorism.
It said the Revolutionary Guards and the ministry of
intelligence and security are directly involved in the planning and
supporting "terrorist" acts in Iraq and elsewhere.
The report also accused Tehran of backing "terrorist"
groups in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
In the run-up to the war, Bush and top administration
officials repeatedly tried to link the Saddam regime to
Al-Qaeda.
But an official investigation into the September 11
attacks found no links between the two, refuting a major war
rationale.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell had admitted
that he had seen "no smoking gun [or] concrete evidence" of ties between
Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
