Iran Circling their Allies’ Wagons, EU to Ask IAEA to Refer to Security Council

USMC_Vet, The Word Unheard:

While it is being reported today that the EU is set to ask the IAEA to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, it should be noted by the careful observer that this is little more than a stage show worthy of Broadway. READ MORE

In order to properly understand it as such, one needs to look into the fact that Iran has begun in earnest to circle the wagons of its nuclear allies in defiance of the threat of referral to the United Nations Security Council over its murky nuclear program following Ahmadinejad's UN address. The EU's various diplomatic reactions to this set the stage for the Broadway show. Also, inexplicably, Iran is finding support from unlikely sources with some traditional US allies joining the wagon train.

Twelve of 14 IAEA board members from the Non-Aligned Movement, meeting on Monday to forge a common position, believed Iran's case should be resolved within the IAEA, diplomats said, with only Peru and Singapore ready to back a referral.

"Everybody would like to avoid a contentious debate in the Security Council," Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh, speaking in New York, told NDTV television news.

Russia, China, Brazil and IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei also oppose an immediate referral to the U.N. Council, while even some European Union countries are wary of possible retaliatory measures by Tehran.

"Countries like Italy and Austria are afraid for their exports," one European diplomat said.

Resolving anything with Iran within the IAEA is implausible, as Iran is a belligerent state seeking nuclear weapons and the IAEA has no enforcement mechanism. And while Indian Foreign Minister Singh (et al) may wish to avoid 'contentious debate' within the UN Security Council, the greater objective (preventing a nuclear armed Iran) should take a higher priority than uncomfortable disagreement.

Is 'contentious debate' not the primary mechanism through which the UN Security Council derives resolution? If there were no 'debate' in the mater, it would not require consideration by the UN Security Council.

It is reprehensible policy to any nation (especially an American ally such as Italy) to line their wagons alongside Iran and forgo any resolution on Iran's clandestine nuclear ambitions for sake of trade protection.

As for Europe, strongly worded statements recently notwithstanding, while they project publicly an image of determination and strength, there are no teeth behind the growls for the cameras.

European diplomats say they would not seek immediate sanctions against Iran, but consider them in future if Iran remained defiant.

French, British and German officials were due to meet with colleagues from other EU countries ahead of the IAEA board meeting. Diplomats said EU members were demanding that any resolution and strategy be agreed by the bloc as a whole.

The haggling over the final text of any IAEA resolution will be long, and EU diplomats says they are in no hurry to force a hasty vote at this week's board meeting. But some EU officials would prefer to vote this week, before the 2005-2006 IAEA board takes office with more non-aligned states.

Some things never change. No immediate sanctions? Why is Iran before the UN regarding this issue to begin with then? If the situation is not severe enough to warrant at least immediate sanctions, then why all of the contentious wrangling? Either it is critical or it is not.

Further, EU diplomats aside from the EU-3 (France, Britain & Germany) are demanding now that the EU collectively reach unanimity? Has the EU ever reach unanimity? Why should one be confident it will be reached in a timely manner now?

And the clincher that underscores the entire tone: EU diplomats says they are in no hurry to get even the first step underway in addressing Iran's clandestine nuclear development.

What, precisely does this 'no hurry' position mean? Well, consider the latest Reuters headline:

EU ratchets up pressure on Iran, Russia opposes

The EU 'ratchets up pressure'? What pressure? Read beyond the headline and learn how to connect the previous 'no hurry' statements with the misleading headline and feigned pressure. Recall that EU diplomats said that they were in no hurry to force this to an IAEA vote. Then note that there is a major difference between the EU writing a 'draft' (requesting the IAEA refer Iran to the UN Security Council) and actually asking the IAEA council for (let alone getting an affirmative and actionable) vote.

"It looks like the draft will be officially submitted to the IAEA board of governors on Wednesday," an EU diplomat said on the sidelines of the 35-nation IAEA board's weeklong meeting.

However, given Russia's opposition to the resolution, it was unclear whether the IAEA board would vote on it this week.

"They (the EU) might just table the resolution but the board would take no action," another diplomat said.

The EU has ratcheted nothing. Words and public statements, but when it comes right down to it, the EU is more interested in the appearance of pressure than actually applying any.

These actions, which will no doubt receive wide coverage for the sudden EU 'firmness' and 'resolve' in both international and US media, are meaningless. That much should be clear when reviewed in careful context of intent.

Today, Ahmadinejad and his mullah terror masters smile and share a laugh.

Time and fools on their side.

Time. Precious time.