|
Shock And Awe; The sequel
By Mike Whitney
03/08/06 "ICH"
-- -- The Bush administration has unilaterally
repealed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) by demanding that
Iran cease all uranium enrichment. This action overturns the central
principle of the treaty which provides states with the “inalienable
right” (NPT phrase) to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Two
years of intrusive inspections by the UN watchdog agency (IAEA) have
not produced “any evidence of nuclear weapons programs” or any
diversion of nuclear material. Nevertheless, the US insists that
Iran be deprived of the same right that is afforded to every other
signatory of the NPT.
What gives Washington the right to rescind an
internationally-recognized treaty?
White House press secretary Scott McClellan summarized the
administration’s view saying, “We’ve made it clear as have many in
the international community that the regime must suspend all
enrichment activity. It cannot be allowed to pursue enrichment in
any capacity on any scale that would allow the regime to develop
technologies needed to develop nuclear weapons.”
McClellan’s comments are a clear violation of the letter and spirit
of the treaty which is not intended to arbitrarily deprive any
member of the advantages of nuclear technology. The administration’s
brazen declaration puts the onus on the 35-member board of the IAEA
to reject their demands. Unfortunately, most of them are already
cowed by the bullying tactics of the US.
This tells us that the system is broken and cannot be expected to
provide solutions to this or any of the other pressing issues that
face the world community. The “superpower model” of governance
allows one party to quash agreements on global warming, nuclear
proliferation, chemical-biological weapons and anything else that
isn’t in its narrow, subjective interests.
Will the member states cave in on these species-threatening issues
too, simply to please Washington?
The Iran Daily; 3-7-06
A last minute compromise by Iran’s foreign-minister left IAEA-chief
Muhammad ElBaradei believing that a negotiated settlement to the
nuclear standoff was possible.
“I am still very much hopeful that that in the next week or so an
agreement can be reached,” said ElBaradei.
The administration crushed all hope of a settlement immediately.
The US State Department dismissed Iran’s concessions and pushed for
a quick referral to the UN Security Council.
Why?
What’s the hurry? Is the administration looking for solutions or are
Pentagon-planners operating on a tight timeline?
Iran’s last minute compromise put Condi Rice into a frenzy; firing
off a panicky phone call to ElBaradei saying, “The United States
cannot support this.”
Support what? Negotiation? Deliberation? Peace?
ElBaradei had merely suggested that “the standoff with Iran could be
resolved in a week or so”. (NY Times) He was optimistic that a deal
with Russia to enrich uranium outside of Iran would allay American
fears of a hidden nuclear weapons program.
Is that what made Condi so anxious?
The US reaction is instructive in many ways, and seems to indicate
that Bush and Co. may have scheduled hostilities for later this
month.
Certainly, the propaganda-campaign is already in full-swing with
Condi, McClellan, Rumsfeld, Bolton, and Cheney all blasting-away at
Iran in the last 48 hours.
The media smokescreen has obscured Iran’s attempts at
"confidence-building" by agreeing to forgo all “industrial scale”
enrichment for two years even though it is allowed under the terms
of the NPT.
The strategy now is to divert attention from Iran’s 'generous offer'
and ratchet up the demagoguery to full-throttle.
In the meantime, the State Dept has been busy moving the goalposts
to ensure that Iran will reject its final offer.
Right after ElBaradei expressed optimism about finding a solution,
Undersecretary of State, Nicholas Burns, pulled the rug out from
under him saying, “The United States will not support any halfway
measures. That means full suspension of all nuclear activities, and
a return to negotiations on that basis.”
“Full suspension”? What right does the US have to ask for full
suspension?
This was the first time that US officials admitted they were
repealing the NPT and brushing aside the counsel of the IAEA. Burns
remarks confirm that the administration is bent on torpedoing the
process.
But how will Burns and Condi derail ElBaradei’s efforts for peace?
Well, for starters, the State Dept will have to make outrageous,
unilateral demands that are so extreme that Iran will never agree to
them. That way, the media can say that Iran is “defying the
international community” and forcing a referral to the Security
Council.
The administration will insist that Iran agree to a moratorium on
the production of enriched uranium, comply with additional
“unspecified” protocols, and allow for “transparency measures” to
accommodate future inspections.
Sound familiar?”
These are the same conditions that were placed on Saddam. Iran knows
that the US will use these “transparency measures” to ferret through
every inch of the country; rummaging through armories, military
bases, palaces, barracks, private residences; anywhere that might
annoy, provoke, humiliate or harass the current regime.
Then, after months of microscopically-combing through every inch of
Iranian sovereign territory, the flummoxed administration will
invent some shaky pretext for invasion.
True or false?
Yesterday’s ham-fisted maneuverings reveal the administration’s true
objectives. Bush would like to conceal his attack on Iran behind a
mask of international legitimacy. But even without Security Council
approval the plan will move forward. The current showdown has
nothing to do with “noncompliance” or imaginary nuclear weapons
programs. It has everything to do with consolidating the vast
resources of the Caspian Basin under the Stars and Stripes and
fending off future threats to America’s global domination.
Look for Shock-and-Awe “the sequel” sometime in late March.
Click below to post a comment on this article
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
