EDITORIAL: Sanctions on Iran
Tough sanctions slapped on Iran by the UN Security Council have raised many questions about the Obama administration’s policy posture, which does not seem to be any different from that of the Bush administration, at least on this issue. The new sanctions will severely damage Iran’s economic interests and prospective business transactions. Out of the 15 members, 12 — including the five permanent members — voted in favour, Turkey and Brazil voted against the sanctions, while Lebanon abstained from voting. Preceding the vote, Turkey and Brazil made intensive efforts for a diplomatic solution to the problem and were able to convince Iran to agree to all the conditions proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and endorsed by the White House. The most significant condition was the demand to transfer a bulk of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) to another country. The three countries signed an agreement on May 17 to this effect. Understandably, Turkey and Brazil as well as the IAEA have expressed extreme disappointment over the White House’s rejection of the agreement and going ahead with the sanctions. Surprisingly, China and Russia, which had so far adopted a more accommodative approach in dealing with Iran, decided to side with the US regarding these sanctions, pointing towards a consensus amongst great powers vis-à-vis Iran’s nuclear programme.
The IAEA has played a positive role in trying to defuse the West’s threat perceptions by taking a more rational position based on ground realities. Dr Mohamed ElBaradei has explicitly stated that after removing half of Iran’s nuclear material to Turkey as a confidence building measure and the rest under IAEA guards and seals, there was no imminent threat of Iran preparing a nuclear bomb. The US rejection of the IAEA advice is not something new. Even when the IAEA inspectors had found “no smoking gun” in Iraq during their search for the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the US went ahead and invaded Iraq. Later, it was proved that there were indeed no WMDs in Iraq. It seems that history is being repeated, only with more players involved now.
There are important questions to ask here. Are these sanctions being imposed to please Israel because of its perceived threat of Hezbollah and Hamas, seen to be supported by Iran? Iran still espouses Khomeini’s anti-US stance, but does that warrant crippling a country’s economy, which may not impact the ruling elite, but will definitely affect the common people. Did the US exhaust all diplomatic channels to convince Iran? Have the sanctions have been put on merit or are they just a ploy of political victimisation? Ironically, nobody questions Israel’s accumulation of nuclear stockpiles. The state has time and again demonstrated an aggressive intent towards its neighbours, while Iran is being hunted and hounded. Last but not the least, why is there a deadly silence in Pakistan over this issue? India abandoned Iran because of the civil-nuclear deal with the US. Pakistan is under no such obligation to keep quiet on the political victimisation of a friendly country.
Nuclear proliferation is indeed a source of concern. However, various manifestations of US aggression in different parts of the world, particularly Iraq, since the fall of the Soviet Union, has convinced smaller nations that conventional military capability is no guarantee to security. It was hoped that the Obama administration would approach the Iran issue differently than his predecessor and send out a message of reconciliation, rather than confrontation, to the world. The UN Security Council Resolution has belied all those hopes.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan