thedrifter
01-23-06, 07:40 AM
Iran: Deja Vu All Over Again
Written by Joe Mariani
Monday, January 23, 2006
Are we really going to go through this whole Kabuki dance all over again? I thought we'd had enough of fake international support from backstabbing allies and a corrupt United Nations the last time we faced down a self-described enemy in the Middle East. Do we have to act out the same scenario again, or can we avoid the same pitfalls this time? Who benefits from this diplomatic ballet, anyway? Certainly not America or her real allies.
Once again, we must deal with a defiant Middle Eastern dictatorship that everyone agrees is working on weapons of mass destruction, has declared us an enemy, oppresses its own people, supports terrorism, and uses oil to prevent being called to account for any of it. Once again, the United Nations is talking tough, and every nation stands behind us--as long as we take no direct action. If we decide to do more than write stern letters and make speeches, you can bet that some of those who supposedly back us now will once again back away. And you can bet that it will be some of the same countries that do so. In the words of Yogi Berra, "It's deja vu all over again."
It was only a little more than three years ago that the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to stop the threat posed by Iraq to the entire region. When push came to shove, three members of the Security Council refused to live up to all the resolutions for which they had voted. France, Russia, and China, while voting to condemn Saddam Hussein, continued to support him in private. All three countries had oil exploitation deals with Iraq that they would lose with a change of regime. France had rights to the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields, Russia had rights to the West Qurna, and China had rights to oil from Al Ahdab. All three countries, as well as Germany, had extensive economic ties to Iraq. All four of those countries vigorously opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, when the time came to act.
Iraq refused to surrender all the materials and documents related to its WMD programs and other biochemical processes by the specified date. UNMOVIC continued to warn us ( www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/.../6mar.pdf) that Iraq may be holding stockpiles of banned weapons. Yet France, Russia, and China refused to even consider the "serious consequences" for non-compliance in the resolution they had signed. France's ambassador to the United Nations stated that he would veto any resolution that called for the use of force. France and Russia, along with Germany, continued to sell weapons and military equipment to Saddam right up to the day he literally crawled into a hole and pulled it in after him.
It was only after the Butcher of Baghdad was overthrown that we began to discover just how deep in his pocket influential people and institutions in France, Russia, and China (among so many other countries) were. The UN's Oil-for-Food program, designed to prevent economic sanctions from being too harsh on the Iraqi people, became the "Oil-for-Votes" program instead.
Now it looks as though the United Nations will make similar strong demands on Iran, to convince them to halt their nuclear program. Sanctions against that country are being discussed... but sanctions will solve nothing, as they solved nothing in Iraq. If Iran should back down in the face of sanctions, how long do we keep them in place? What kind of hardship will they impose on the average Iranian citizen? Will we see another Oil-for-Food program take shape--and will it, like the Iraqi version, become a cash cow for the regime it's supposed to humble?
This time, we are assured, the United States has the backing of every nation on the Security Council, including France, Russia, and China. We are lulled by the thought that all of Europe is with us this time, including Germany. But we had their full backing and support in November 2002, didn't we? As long as standing up to terrorist dictatorships working on illegal weapons consists solely of putting words on paper and making tough speeches, we will have the support of countries that have economic ties with those dictatorships. When it comes time to back those words up with force, though, we can't trust nations whose economies depend on the enemy. We will undoubtedly see the same scenario play out with Iran that we did with Iraq. Which of our allies will stall, and finally veto, the use of force in Iran?
A Chinese delegation was in Iran as recently as December 2005, attempting to negotiate an oil contract worth one hundred billion dollars. A deal giving the Chinese oil firm COSL exploitation rights in the Caspian Sea was recently signed, according the the Iranian news agency MEHR. In 2004, the Chinese firm Sinopec signed a deal with Iran for exploitation of the Yadavaran oil field near the border with Iraq. There are few reasons for China to back sanctions, let alone military action, against Iran.
Europe is becoming overrun with Middle Eastern immigrants. Between 15 and 20 million Muslims live in Europe, making up four to five percent of its population. France's Muslim population comprises between seven and ten percent of the whole. Most Muslims may be decent, law-abiding citizens, but terror groups, some funded by Iran, run almost unchecked throughout Europe. Not many European countries, especially France, will want to risk repeating the Paris riots of November 2005.
Russia is actually helping the Iranians build nuclear reactors, and even signed a deal to supply the fuel to power them in February 2005. Why would Russia abandon what might be its most dependable source of revenue for the next decade? Given Russia's deepening ties with China, that country could block any action against Iran as a way of appeasing both allies at once.
By working through the United Nations, we once again subject ourselves to unnecessary debate, delay, danger, and demoralisation, even as Iran draws us all closer to the brink of nuclear war. The same countries that fought the overthrow of Saddam for economic reasons will likely fight the overthrow of Iran's government, and for the same motive. Shouldn't we learn from our mistakes, and stop entrusting our safety to those who have proven themselves untrustworthy?
If we must deal with Iran militarily, we will certainly need the support of other nations--but let it be through NATO, not the United Nations. And let it be soon.
About the Writer: Joe Mariani is a computer consultant and freelance writer who lives in Pennsylvania. His website is available at: guardian.blogdrive.com.
Ellie
Written by Joe Mariani
Monday, January 23, 2006
Are we really going to go through this whole Kabuki dance all over again? I thought we'd had enough of fake international support from backstabbing allies and a corrupt United Nations the last time we faced down a self-described enemy in the Middle East. Do we have to act out the same scenario again, or can we avoid the same pitfalls this time? Who benefits from this diplomatic ballet, anyway? Certainly not America or her real allies.
Once again, we must deal with a defiant Middle Eastern dictatorship that everyone agrees is working on weapons of mass destruction, has declared us an enemy, oppresses its own people, supports terrorism, and uses oil to prevent being called to account for any of it. Once again, the United Nations is talking tough, and every nation stands behind us--as long as we take no direct action. If we decide to do more than write stern letters and make speeches, you can bet that some of those who supposedly back us now will once again back away. And you can bet that it will be some of the same countries that do so. In the words of Yogi Berra, "It's deja vu all over again."
It was only a little more than three years ago that the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to stop the threat posed by Iraq to the entire region. When push came to shove, three members of the Security Council refused to live up to all the resolutions for which they had voted. France, Russia, and China, while voting to condemn Saddam Hussein, continued to support him in private. All three countries had oil exploitation deals with Iraq that they would lose with a change of regime. France had rights to the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields, Russia had rights to the West Qurna, and China had rights to oil from Al Ahdab. All three countries, as well as Germany, had extensive economic ties to Iraq. All four of those countries vigorously opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, when the time came to act.
Iraq refused to surrender all the materials and documents related to its WMD programs and other biochemical processes by the specified date. UNMOVIC continued to warn us ( www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/.../6mar.pdf) that Iraq may be holding stockpiles of banned weapons. Yet France, Russia, and China refused to even consider the "serious consequences" for non-compliance in the resolution they had signed. France's ambassador to the United Nations stated that he would veto any resolution that called for the use of force. France and Russia, along with Germany, continued to sell weapons and military equipment to Saddam right up to the day he literally crawled into a hole and pulled it in after him.
It was only after the Butcher of Baghdad was overthrown that we began to discover just how deep in his pocket influential people and institutions in France, Russia, and China (among so many other countries) were. The UN's Oil-for-Food program, designed to prevent economic sanctions from being too harsh on the Iraqi people, became the "Oil-for-Votes" program instead.
Now it looks as though the United Nations will make similar strong demands on Iran, to convince them to halt their nuclear program. Sanctions against that country are being discussed... but sanctions will solve nothing, as they solved nothing in Iraq. If Iran should back down in the face of sanctions, how long do we keep them in place? What kind of hardship will they impose on the average Iranian citizen? Will we see another Oil-for-Food program take shape--and will it, like the Iraqi version, become a cash cow for the regime it's supposed to humble?
This time, we are assured, the United States has the backing of every nation on the Security Council, including France, Russia, and China. We are lulled by the thought that all of Europe is with us this time, including Germany. But we had their full backing and support in November 2002, didn't we? As long as standing up to terrorist dictatorships working on illegal weapons consists solely of putting words on paper and making tough speeches, we will have the support of countries that have economic ties with those dictatorships. When it comes time to back those words up with force, though, we can't trust nations whose economies depend on the enemy. We will undoubtedly see the same scenario play out with Iran that we did with Iraq. Which of our allies will stall, and finally veto, the use of force in Iran?
A Chinese delegation was in Iran as recently as December 2005, attempting to negotiate an oil contract worth one hundred billion dollars. A deal giving the Chinese oil firm COSL exploitation rights in the Caspian Sea was recently signed, according the the Iranian news agency MEHR. In 2004, the Chinese firm Sinopec signed a deal with Iran for exploitation of the Yadavaran oil field near the border with Iraq. There are few reasons for China to back sanctions, let alone military action, against Iran.
Europe is becoming overrun with Middle Eastern immigrants. Between 15 and 20 million Muslims live in Europe, making up four to five percent of its population. France's Muslim population comprises between seven and ten percent of the whole. Most Muslims may be decent, law-abiding citizens, but terror groups, some funded by Iran, run almost unchecked throughout Europe. Not many European countries, especially France, will want to risk repeating the Paris riots of November 2005.
Russia is actually helping the Iranians build nuclear reactors, and even signed a deal to supply the fuel to power them in February 2005. Why would Russia abandon what might be its most dependable source of revenue for the next decade? Given Russia's deepening ties with China, that country could block any action against Iran as a way of appeasing both allies at once.
By working through the United Nations, we once again subject ourselves to unnecessary debate, delay, danger, and demoralisation, even as Iran draws us all closer to the brink of nuclear war. The same countries that fought the overthrow of Saddam for economic reasons will likely fight the overthrow of Iran's government, and for the same motive. Shouldn't we learn from our mistakes, and stop entrusting our safety to those who have proven themselves untrustworthy?
If we must deal with Iran militarily, we will certainly need the support of other nations--but let it be through NATO, not the United Nations. And let it be soon.
About the Writer: Joe Mariani is a computer consultant and freelance writer who lives in Pennsylvania. His website is available at: guardian.blogdrive.com.
Ellie