Iran faces possible U.N. sanctions over nuclear program

The US is pushing stronger action, but others want only mild measures.

By Simon Montlake

from the February 27, 2008 edition

The UN Security Council is weighing a vote later this week to impose fresh sanctions on Iran over its uranium enrichment program. The UN's watchdog agency has warned that the program, which Iran calls peaceful, may still include a military component. This week, the International Atomic Energy Agency heard evidence that Iran had secretly developed nuclear arms after 2003.

The IAEA assessment, issued last Friday, provoked controversy because United States intelligence agencies concluded last year that Iran had stopped a nuclear weapons program in 2003. Iran denounced documents submitted to the IAEA as "forgeries."

The US has been pushing for tougher UN sanctions on Iran and the Bush administration has long argued that Iran is trying to build atomic weapons. Still, opposition from other permanent members of the UN Security Council is expected, and the outcome is likely to be a mild range of measures that rebuke Iran.

In its Friday report, the IAEA said that Iran had continued to enrich uranium in defiance of the Security Council resolutions, the Associated Press reports. The report also said that previous issues that raised suspicion had been largely resolved, but questions remained over possible military applications that Iran, so far, has been unable to answer satisfactorily.

The BBC says that material presented to the IAEA's 35-nation board on Monday included designs for a nuclear warhead and information about how it would fit onto a missile. The dates of these purported weapons experiments went "beyond 2003," according to Simon Smith, the British representative to the agency.

Rasoul Movahedian, the Iranian ambassador to Britain, told the Financial Times that the US was trying to sabotage its cooperation with the IAEA. He said that spurious documentary claims of weapons plans were being sprung on Iran at the last minute, contrary to an earlier agreement with the nuclear agency.

"We believe the alleged studies are an... American tactic: whenever the agency tries to conclude a report, the Americans try to provide information to disrupt co-operation and sabotage the process. But the information proves to be fake intelligence."

According to the IAEA, the delay in providing the material to Iran appears to have been due to a last-minute decision by member states – almost certainly including the US – to declassify it. However, the IAEA also said discussions were held with Iran in late January and early February on a wide range of other material that pointed to possible attempts to militarise its nuclear programme.

The Washington Post reports that representatives from major powers met Monday to discuss strategy on Iran, including possible new European-favored incentives for cooperation. Britain, China, the US, Russia, France, and Germany agreed to push for a UN Security Council resolution this week to authorize the third set of sanctions since 2006, though unanimity is unlikely because of differences in the 15-member council. The five permanent members have veto power; otherwise nine votes are sufficient for the resolution.

The six powers that met in Washington yesterday are concerned that any dissent on the Security Council would lead Iran to believe it has begun to crack international resolve, officials present at the talks said.

"That's why it should not be a sweeter package, but a reasonable one that makes them understand it's the best thing to get to the negotiating table. That's what it's about," said a second European diplomat party to the talks. "Does it make them think we're running after them? That's not what it's about."

Libya, a nonpermanent member of the Security Council, has publicly expressed its doubts about supporting the UN resolution, and Western diplomats believe that South Africa, Vietnam, and Indonesia may also dissent, Reuters reports. Minor changes may be made to the final resolution, but milder sanctions seem unlikely at this stage.

The Iranian envoy to the UN has already rejected the proposed sanctions. The ambassador, Mohammad Khazee, said he saw no reason to suspect its uranium enrichment, reports Bloomberg. The proposed UN text calls for countries to monitor financial dealings with Iran, bar the travel of designated officials, and inspect Iranian cargo that might contain banned goods.

The New York Times reports that Mr. Khazee denied that Iranians would be deterred by additional sanctions, saying: "We have learned to live with them." He took aim at the documents supplied to the IAEA by Western sources that appeared to show a warhead that could carry a nuclear device. He said a terrorist group had forged the documents and claimed that those named as involved in the program had no such access, despite the assertions of Western powers.

Asia Times Online says in an editorial that the IAEA has set the bar unreasonably high by effectively asking Iran to prove the absence of its alleged military programs. Academic Kaveh Afrasiabi writes that the US may be using "systematic disinformation" against Iran, as it did over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. He argues that the IAEA, which is led by director-general Mohammad ElBaradei, has exceeded its legal mandate.

In a tone reminiscent of the Iraq fiasco, when Saddam Hussein was pressed to "prove the negative" over alleged weapons of mass destruction, El Baradei's report sets the bar artificially very high by stating that for the agency to have confidence about Iran's nuclear program, it should "be able to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, equally importantly, regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran".

How does one prove a negative? This question has the bad odor of bitter memory, recalling how the same question was repeatedly posed by the Ba'athist regime's envoy to the UN prior to the US's invasion (on false pretexts) in 2003.

In an editorial, Israel's daily newspaper Haaretz says UN sanctions won't have much effect on a defiant Iran and that the real question for Israel is the position of the next US president on the Iranian nuclear issue. Israel believes that Iran could obtain a nuclear weapon within the next two years, in contrast to the US intelligence estimate that such a threat is several years away. As long as Iran is developing fissionable material and has missile capability, the threat remains, it argues.

The standard-bearer for the Republican Party, Senator John McCain of Arizona, is partner to Bush's belligerent stance against a nuclear Iran. The Democrats have not yet stabilized around a candidate and only in the duel between the candidates of the two parties this fall will there be an airing of the differences of opinion on foreign affairs and security issues, among them a nuclear Iran. The mission, then, is to get to the next administration with a reasonable opening position in the international arena, in the shape of resolutions on sanctions.