> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, uvj at vsnl.com wrote:
>
> > Why Iran is almost completely isolated at IAEA on this question?
>
> Because it reversed direction and stopped cooperating with
> inspectors. So the IAEA has recommended action -- with the
> intention of getting inspections resumed. And the IAEA is a
> careful body, and one of the only that still has credibility in
> this area, and doesn't make recommendations rashly, so countries
> tend to follow its lead.
>
> But it is a question of Iran breaking the rules of the old treaty.
> It is rather a desire on the part of the IAEA to set a precedent
> for the additional protocol that Iran agreed to voluntarily. The
> IAEA would like to give the additional protocol binding force of
> internaitonal customary law. Because everyone, and most of all the
> IAEA, knows the NPT is in many ways obsolete. Getting the
> additional protocol accepted as common practice is the only way it
> can see so far to evolve something more effective without a major
> refoundation, which it is powerless to bring about itself.
>
> The IAEA has been scrupulously clear, just as it was in Iraq, that
> has discovered no evidence of a nuclear bomb making program -- but
> that it also cannot rule it out, and needs more cooperation and
> inspection privileges in order to do so.
>
> Iran feels that it voluntarily gave up its rights for 2 years
> expecting a quid pro quo and got nothing. (The oft quoted Iranian
> proverb is "we gave up a pearl for a candy.") And seems to think,
> under the very indirect leadership of Ahmadinejad, that these sort
> of confrontational tactics will get it more.
>
> Which is wrong. And the IAEA referral has made that pretty clear
> and horrified most intelligent people in Iran. But now national
> pride is even more bunched up in it that usual.
Or rather Tehran believes that giving in on one thing will embolden the Brussels-Washington axis to put more pressures on Iran on it as well as other issues, rather than deescalating the conflict. Khamenei is quoted as saying in an article by Michael Slackman run in the New York Times on 15 March 2006: "Any kind of retreat will bring a series of pressures and retreats" (<http://www.iht.com/articles/ 2006/03/15/africa/web.0315iran.php>). That is a reasonable estimate of what the Brussels-Washington axis is up to. The axis's goal is clearly regime change in Iran, not changing Iran's nuclear energy program.
As for the IAEA vote, Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria opposed the referral to the Security Council, rightly so. India would have opposed it, too, if Indian leftists had more power and were willing to use it to bring down the UPA government on this and other issues if it failed to comply:
The Financial Express
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Close this window Nuclear Deal
'Prime Minister is slapping his own face'
PRESS TRUST OF INDIA
New Delhi, March 16: The Left parties accused the UPA government at the centre of violating the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) on several major issues and charged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with being "intellectually dishonest" on the issue of Indo-US ties.
Speaking to a news channel, CPI(M) and CPI members warned the government of "very serious consequences" if "violations" of CMP continued.
To questions on Indo-US relations, including nuclear deal, CPI(M) Leader Nilotpal Basu said the Prime Minister is "slapping his own face".
"There have been a series of debates in the House. One the one hand, he (the Prime Minister) says he is not for regime change. But on the other, India becomes director of the international centre for democratic initiative, which is funded by CIA... This position cannot be defended even by Congress in Parliament."
"The stand taken in Parliament and the agreement entered into with the US "becomes ludicrous and untenable and shows that the Prime minister is not being intellectually honest", said Basu.
In the context of the issue of regime change, he said, "it is now becoming increasingly clear that Iraq will be repeated in Iran.
CPI national secretary D Raja said the Prime Minister spoke of enlightened national interest in shaping India's foreign policy but charged that the stand taken on Iran's nuclear programme at the IAEA was "against the feelings of the people of India".
"The Prime Minister, by doing this, is creating real problems for Congress and for himself", Raja said.
Expressing resentment over the government's airport privatisation, allowing FDI in retail sector and cutting EPF rate, the two Left leaders alleged these are "breaches" of CMP.
Basu warned that the government "should be prepared to face very serious consequences if the violations continue."
The government is "not the reading the writing on the wall. People don't accept these policies and the Left is only articulating those views, he said.
Basu hinted that UPA would meet the same fate as NDA if it sticks to these policies.
Speaking in the same vein, Raja said that UPA should realize that it runs a minority govt with Left support, which is based on CMP. The CPI (M) leader asked the UPA partners to assess to what extent the government was abiding by the CMP and he said it was for the government to see to it that its stability was ensured.
"We have decided that we are not going to remain weighed down by the UPA-Left coordination alone. Whenever the government goes unilaterally, we will raise the issue inside and outside Parliament", said Basu.
Raja said the Left parties had given 19 notes on crucial issues... "People feel that the Left has valid objections but the government is doing what it wants. This is disturbing us.
Asked when will the Left parties review support, Basu said, "I cannot guarantee the tenure of the govt. It is beyond my calculation."
URL: http://www.financialexpress.com/latest_full_story.php? content_id=120557
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>