Friday, February 03, 2006

Why refer Iran to the UNSC now, as opposed to a month from now?

When I heard that Russia and China had given their support to a resolution that wanted to refer Iran's nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, I was surprised, but nevertheless happy to see that their backing of the document was conditional to the fact that nothing would happen with the Security Council until March, after the IAEA releases its report about Iran's program investigation.

I strongly believe that the negotiations and the IAEA investigation should be allowed to run their course, and appropriate decisions (whichever one) can be taken then, in due time.

Seriously, what's the big rush in referring Iran to the Security Council now?? Why is that so important to the US and the EU3? Why can they not afford to wait one more month when they know the IAEA is supposed to publish its findings on March 6?

Nobody has put forward a compelling reason to do so and botch the IAEA's investigation.
And everybody agrees that whatever Iran's alleged intentions, civil energy or weapons, there is definitely no *imminent* threat.

I can't help but parallel that with the rush to war from the Bush administration in Feb/Mar 2003, when they would not wait two weeks for the weapons inspectors' report on WMDs.

If anybody knows of a compelling reason to refer Iran's nuclear issue to the Security Council NOW, please let me know.

There is nothing to gain (no action until March 6 anyway) and everything to lose (Iran said it would be compelled by its law to pull off from their voluntary adhesion to the Additional Protocol, which ensures the IAEA is conducting regular inspections)...

Labels: ,