It appears that U.N. resolution 1737 will make Iran even tougher. It was announced that the decision to establish a 3,000 centrifuge uranium enrichment facility will be implemented. Accompanied by the slogan “Death to America,” the Iranian Parliament decided to review cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC).
However, it should not be forgotten that even if Tehran targets the United States and Israel during crisis, all Security Council members signed the resolution. Which countries are these? As is known, there are 15 members on the Security Council. Five of them are permanent members with veto power: the United States, France, China, Russia and England. The other 10 members are elected for two-year terms: Greece, Argentina, Qatar, the Congo, Japan, Slovakia, Denmark, Peru, Tanzania and Ghana. It is meaningful that the resolution on Iran was unanimous.
In this respect, the decision is a key point in Iran’s foreign policy since the revolution to date. Iran, always at oddes with the U.S.-Israel axis, was careful to take advantage of internal disputes and its relations with other actors like Russia and China. Even if these countries are still distinct in Iran’s policies, the resolution shows that for the first time Iran has taken on the whole world. Known for his closeness with Iran, the French U.N. representative’s words are significant: “Iran has two clear options in front of it. Either Iran will begin cooperating or it will become even more isolated.”
The countries preparing the draft resolution are England, France and Germany, three European countries that advocate solving the problem by diplomatic means. The only consolation of countries close to Iran is that the resolution was made taking into consideration the 7th Division and 41st article of U.N. Stipulation 7, thus it does not include using force against Iran.
The resolution wants to outlaw technology and financing that would contribute to Iran’s nuclear efforts. It brings sanctions such as travel-prohibitions and the freezing of assets of individuals and institutions participating in these kinds of Iranian activities. A written report has been requested from the IAEC within 60 days that indicates whether or not Iran has complied with the resolution.
Since it reflects agreement in the final analysis, it is a more lenient decision than expected. However, it is important in respect to showing the point at which the whole world is in consensus. That point is that by cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Commission, Iran should immediately suspend its uranium enrichment activities.
Even if it does not change the end result significantly, there are some points in this crisis on which Iran is right. In spite of Israeli Prime Minister Olmert’s openly admitting that his country possesses nuclear weapons, the world says nothing. But when it comes to Iran, the “suspicion” that it will use peaceful nuclear activities for nuclear weapons is enough for sanctions.
For this reason, Iran always brings up this contradiction. Its U.N. Representative Cevad Zarif placed his speech critical of the resolution within this framework. He criticizes the Security Council’s inaction against Israel. Sharing his behind-the scenes contacts in Tehran, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan said that the Iranian leader always brought up the point that the United Nations was busy with them, but not Israel or North Korea.
What is Iran’s view on the nuclear crisis that is dangerously moving forward? The circles I spoke with in Tehran mention three things. First, the attitude of the people who do not know much about their situation. Their view is that nuclear energy is their right, and why not? Second, the conservative viewpoint. Their viewpoint is that nuclear activities won’t be abandoned, even if the price is war. The third is the intellectual viewpoint. They ask: “Even if we suspend activities now, we have already obtained the technology. If our goal is not nuclear weapons, why don’t we make our activities transparent and cooperate with the world? After eight years of war, why take the country into another crisis?”
Will an effort for resolution be forthcoming? Perhaps. However, I would like to add that it is said that the third viewpoint has not been reflected in the media because it is contrary to national interests.
