With Israel pushing the US toward a new war against Iran, the IAEA's anti-Iran resolution has already backfired, undermining Tehran's new negotiations-friendly administration, and handing a proverbial gift to the nation's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The Cradle
The censure measure
The measure, under authority granted to the IAEA through the ‘NPT Safeguards Agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran,’ was introduced by the E3, backed by the US – and indirectly by Israel, an undeclared nuclear state that remains outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The resolution demanded Iran provide “technically credible explanations for the presence of uranium particles of anthropogenic origin at several undeclared locations in Iran.” Tehran’s responses, detailed in IAEA’s 19 November report, are just as unverifiable as comparing the presence of uranium particles to Loch Ness monster sightings.
Nineteen members of IAEA’s Board of Governors voted in favor of the E3 measure, while 12 states abstained. Three countries – Russia, China, and Burkina Faso – voted “no.” Venezuela was unable to vote.
A week before the resolution passed, IAEA chief Dr Rafael Grossi met with Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and Mohammad Eslami, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (AEO).
Grossi visited two nuclear sites and called Iran's offer to cap its 60 percent (90 percent is commonly considered weapons-grade) Highly-Enriched Uranium (HEU) stockpile a “concrete step in the right direction,” noting that AEO’s commitment to cap stockpiles could falter “as a result of further developments” – that is, the E3 censure resolution could lead to the Islamic Republic withdrawing its offer.
The Rules-Based International Order®
The E3 and US had no real interest in addressing concerns over Iran’s nuclear program through good faith diplomacy. Instead, the IAEA was used as a political weapon against Iran, a common tactic employed by western-dominated international bodies.
When the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, NATO member states called for his arrest. However, when the ICC slapped Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the same, US President Joe Biden denounced it as “outrageous,” having said Putin’s arrest warrant was “justified.” France, an ICC member, argued that “Netanyahu is covered by immunity” as a sitting head of government, “because Israel is not a member of the ICC.”
Agreements with the US and its European vassal states are worthless. Take, for example, the Minsk Agreements that were intended to end the Donbass War between Ukraine and Russian separatists. Germany’s former chancellor Angela Merkel revealed NATO’s real goal behind the agreement with Russia:
“The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine. It also used this time to become stronger as can be seen today. The Ukraine of 2014-2015 is not the modern Ukraine.”
Former French president Francois Hollande confirms that “yes, Angela Merkel is right on this point […] Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military posture. Indeed, the Ukrainian army was completely different from that of 2014. It was better trained and equipped.”
NATO never intended for Minsk I (and Minsk II) to end the conflict in Ukraine, but to buy time to prepare for a bigger war in which it intended to use Ukraine as its battering ram against Russia.
Iranians have long memories of US duplicity. Iran honored its commitments under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), only for then-US President Donald Trump to unilaterally withdraw in 2018, reimposing sanctions in a “maximum pressure” campaign. The so-called “Rules-Based International Order®” of the west boils down to the following: one set of rules for us, another for everyone else.
Iran’s reformists and realists
The tortuous and painful history of Anglo-American duplicity vis-à-vis Iran has not prevented ‘Reformists’ – figures like Pezeshkian, Araghchi, and Javad Zarif – from continuing to seek negotiations, seemingly blind to the futility.
They do not grasp that the US and Israel want nothing short of Iran dismantling its entire nuclear program, leaving the country defenseless, as happened to Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi. One does not negotiate with parties that refuse to honor agreements.
The Kremlin understands this. Russia’s UN representative, Vasily Nebenzya, dismissed NATO’s attempts to freeze the Ukraine conflict through Minsk-style agreements to save their Ukraine war project from certain military defeat, “don’t waste time. We no longer trust these deceptive schemes.” Iranian reformists, however, still do not get it.
The so-called ‘hardliners’ in Iran are actually the realists. They see the threats facing the country clearly. Realists warned against the JCPOA, and events proved them right. Even while it was in effect, the occupation state and its allies undermined the deal – former US president Barack Obama discouraged investment, and US lawmakers pressured banks not to engage with Iran.
Stuart Levey, a Zionist and former undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI) under former US president George Bush and Obama, and later the chief legal officer of a British bank, said, “HSBC has no intention of doing any new business involving Iran.” Tehran reaped negligible benefits from JCPOA compliance before Trump tore up the agreement.
The E3 censure was another gift to the realists. They warned that advancing the resolution would lead to escalations – and kept their word. Shortly after the resolution passed, 5,000 IR-6 centrifuges began spinning.
Experienced diplomats in Europe likely knew this would happen, but their foreign policy teams are now led by naïve politicians: Annalena Baerbock, David Lammy, and Jean-Noël Barrot. Manipulated by Israel, the E3 believed Iran would fold under pressure.
Instead, Netanyahu received exactly what he wanted – a pretext to press Trump for a military strike on Iran, with the justification that “they’re enriching more uranium.” Netanyahu's comment that “the ceasefire deal [in Lebanon] now means we will focus on the Iranian threat” makes it clear: war is coming.
A fatwa away
Is now the time for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to reconsider his “fatwa” and for Iran to assemble nuclear bombs? Tehran certainly has the means of delivery: ballistic missiles with “maneuverable re-entry vehicles” (MaRV) that can accurately deliver nuclear warheads on Israeli targets.
Iran will also have a functioning continental ballistic missile (ICBM) program when Trump takes office in January. It is intended to curb his impulse to strike Iran. ICBM missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads to 10 US cities will offer Iran immunity under the Cold War doctrine of “Mutually-Assured Destruction” (MAD).
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is obsolete, binding only for enemies of the western “Rules-Based International Order®” while leaving Israel untouched. Iran has endured harassment for decades by the IAEA through the NPT Safeguards Agreement that went into effect on 15 May 1974 – an agreement signed by the former monarchial regime that was overthrown by the people of Iran.
So, will the Iranians throw up their hands and extricate themselves from the NPT's discriminatory shackles? A spokesperson for Iran’s National Security Commission (NSC) said just this: “Exiting the NPT is one of our solutions to confront the west.” NSC member Bakhshaish Ardestani argued that simultaneous withdrawal from the NPT and moving toward bomb production is crucial since the sanctions cauldron cannot boil any hotter.
Other elements of society have weighed in, too. Qom’s Friday Imam, on 22 November, said, “the situation has changed, and we request his eminence [Ayatollah Khamenei] to reconsider the nuclear fatwa.”
Khamenei's post on X five days later hinted at a shift, offering hope that he is listening: “the country’s military capabilities must be so pronounced in the eyes of Iran’s ill-wishers that the enemy strongly feels any confrontation would be very costly for them.”
The only agreements with the US that hold weight are those blessed by Israel – and Israel will only agree if it’s militarily defeated.
The ceasefire in Lebanon happened because Hezbollah held firm and turned the tide. A super-majority of Israelis (61 percent) believe Israel lost to Hezbollah. With Netanyahu eyeing Iran next, Khamenei must ensure the IRGC has the strength to meet and counter the “Israeli threat.”
No comments:
Post a Comment