NO NEED FOR WAR; LET’S DO LUNCH INSTEAD

UN-Iran cooperation on nukes at risk (Jim Bencivenga, Christian science Monitor, June 18th, 2004)

The UN atomic agency on Friday adopted a tough resolution rebuking Iran for failing to divulge more information about its nuclear program. The action was favorably greeted by the United States and strongly criticized by Iran, 1. reports CNN.

In harsh language, the resolution approved by the 35-member board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 'deplores' that 'Iran's cooperation has not been as full, timely and proactive as it should have been,' and notes 'with concern that after almost two years' since Iran's undeclared program came to light, 'a number of questions remain outstanding.'

Originally scheduled for release on Thursday, the resolution was delayed as diplomatic language was sought to strike the right tone between condemnation of Iran's apparent stonewalling and not causing the Islamic Republic to withdraw from the IAEA process, as it has threatened, reported The Christian Science Monitor on Thursday.

Noticeably absent this time in the IAEA report were previous European concerns about how the wording might offend Iran, reports the Monitor: [...]

The stakes are high, as an editorial in the Jerusalem Post - prior to the IAEA resolution on Friday - declared:

The time has come for a simple question: Does Europe want Iran to go nuclear?... To some, standing up to Iran's brazen nuclear bid will be seen as starting another war. It is the opposite. It is not too late to attempt, by economic means alone, forcing Iran to go the way of Libya and getting out of the nuclear and terrorism business. The longer Europe and the US wait to act, the more the options will become limited to living with Iran as a terrorist base with a nuclear umbrella, or taking military action.[...]

The AP quotes a Western diplomat familiar with the US position as saying on Thursday that the Americans were content because they "feel this ... helps tee [Iran] up" for Security Council action at the next board meeting in September.

But such a measure is of immense concern to the drafters of the resolution, Britain, France, and Germany, reports the Monitor. "Europe wants to know what on earth would happen [if] they went to the Security Council," says the Brookings Institution's Levi, "and no one can give them a straight answer."

As in the thirties, the bankruptcy of European diplomacy and their beloved international law is chracterized by their desperate addiction to process and institutions. At Durban, just about every country but the U.S. shamed itself by persisitng in and giving credibility to that anti-Semitic festival for fear that the “process” would collapse. In this world of abstract and dangerous dreams, tyrants are suffered endlessly and mortal threats endured provided everyone stays at the table.

There is no greater glory to present American foreign policy than that it refuses to surrender principle and its moral underpinnings to keep some corrupt international order afloat. That is also the source of the widespread hatred it inspires.