Iran: The clenched fist of US diplomacy

A top US diplomat has said he expects European states to prepare a binding UN resolution on Iran's nuclear programme that could allow for sanctions.

US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns was speaking ahead of Paris talks between all five permanent members of the UN Security Council on the issue.

But he insisted that diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis were not over.

A UN report last week said Iran was violating a Security Council order to suspend uranium enrichment**.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful.

The US, Britain and France are pressing for a Security Council resolution that will order Iran to suspend enrichment.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki said earlier Russia and China had told Iran they were "against sanctions and military attacks".

"There is a very wrong assumption held by some that the West can do anything it wants through the Security Council," he told Tehran newspaper Kayhan. Read more

**ICH - Iran was not ordered to Stop Enrichment

It's easy to get confused about developments in Iran because the media does everything in its power to obfuscate the facts and then spin the details in way that advances American policy objectives. But, let's be clear; the Security Council did NOT order Iran to stop enriching uranium. It may not even be in their power to do so since enrichment is guaranteed under the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty). For the Security Council to forbid Iran to continue with enrichment activities would be tantamount to repealing the treaty itself. They didn’t do that.

What they did was "request" that Iran suspend enrichment activities so that the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) could further prove that Iran's nuclear programs were entirely for peaceful purposes.

In fact, as nuclear scientist Gordon Prather reports, the Security Council actually confirmed Iran's right to enrich uranium in a terse Presidential Statement which they issued after two weeks of deliberation:

"The Security Council reaffirms its commitment to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons and recalls the right of States Party, in conformity with articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination".

Should we be surprised that not one newspaper in the western press printed this astonishing vindication of Iran's conduct under the terms of the NPT? Link

db: Burns, like the UK is looking for a Chapter 7 resolution - as the BBC reports, the council has to agree that there is a threat to "international peace and security" for this to happen. As far as we are aware there is only one state on the face of the planet that is refusing to rule out a preemptive strike with nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country. That state is, of course, the neocrazy dominated USA - by far the worlds greatest threat to "international peace and security".

The BBC points out that "further decisions would be needed" before sanctions or military action could take place via Chapter 7. The US has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it does not consider itself subject to international law - the belief that a Chapter 7 resolution will contain no de facto 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with respect to the use of force is indicative of severe memory loss.

Based on past form, the danger is that just as soon as the US judges the time right (hits a Russian/Chinese veto) the diplomacy will come to an end and the real US policy of 'saving Iran' aka 'regime change' will kick-off -- with the grave possibility of a nuclear strike.