High-level meetings are scheduled this week to discuss the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) imposition of a third round of sanctions on Iran. Ongoing debate concerning the effectiveness of sanctions and the formula a successful sanction regime would take will culminate on September 28, 2007 in a meeting between the UNSC members’ top diplomats, including US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. If passed by the UNSC, the new round of sanctions against Iran will be tougher than their predecessors and will possibly include sanctions on funding for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG), an action that was foreshadowed in the US’ August 2007 categorization of the IRG as a terrorist group. The US, England, and France are in agreement that tough action needs to be taken against Iran and support the imposition of new sanctions, but China and Russia are unconvinced.
The imposition of new sanctions on Iran is opposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Director-General Mohammad ElBaradei who believes that Iran has the right to nuclear energy and opposes UNSC imposed sanctions on Iran. In August 2007, the IAEA reached an understanding with Iran in which Iran was given until the end of December 2007 to explain past incidences of safeguard violations; including: experiments with materials potentially of use in bomb-making, unexplained traces of enriched uranium, black-market purchases of more advanced uranium-spinning centrifuge machines than those installed at the Natanz enrichment plant, and documentation that alludes to weapons manufacture.
While Iranian President Ahmadinejad and IAEA Director ElBaradei say the understanding reached between the IAEA and Iran lays the groundwork for dialogue that will lead to a satisfaction of all of the UNSC’s questions concerning Iran’s nuclear program, the UNSC considers the understanding an affront to its unheeded resolutions that Iran stop uranium enrichment immediately. Members of the Security Council caution ElBaradei that his role with the IAEA is to provide technical assessments of Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities, not to engage in freelance diplomacy.
Understanding’s Consequences
The IAEA’s agreement with Iran carries with it three potential consequences:
• Limits the scope of discussion between Iran and the IAEA to past, rather than present, uranium enrichment concerns. Non-proliferation expert David Albright, President of the Institute for Science and International Security, warned that the IAEA’s agreement with Iran does not give the agency, “access to people, documents, or sites.”
• Provides a platform for Iran to defy UNSC resolutions under the auspices of meeting IAEA requirements; politically dividing the two entities which will lead to a lack of UNSC trust in the IAEA’s findings
• Buys time for Iran to continue uranium enrichment efforts that may lead to the production of an Iranian nuclear weapon.
The Stand-Off
The IAEA’s understanding with Iran and its focus on past offenses further limits the UNSC’s ability to ascertain the scope of current Iranian uranium enrichment efforts, while Iran’s continued refusal to adhere to UNSC resolutions instructing Iran to cease uranium enrichment concerns UNSC members who believe Iran is seeking to build a nuclear weapon. Coupled with French President Sarkozy’s and US Secretary of State Rice’s warnings that all options are on the table concerning Iran, and Israel’s mysterious bombing raid into Syria on September 6, 2007, (previous report) the outlook for UNSC-Iranian dialogue concerning its uranium enrichment is bleak.
Iran warned that an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities will lead to the unleashing of Iranian proxies and guided missiles against Israeli and Western targets. Iran also unveiled a new ballistic missile with a range of 1,800km named Ghadar, which is an upgrade of its 1,300km range Shahab-3 missile. UNSC and Israeli officials, who consider Iran a real threat to regional and international security, take these Iranian threats seriously.
Therefore, the UNSC will continue to seek sanctions and dialogue first and military action second in its approach to Iran. However, should China and Russia fail to approve new sanctions against Iran, the US, France, England, and Israel may alternatively plan to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities in the mid-term.
