Iranian Diplomacy’s Analysis of resolution 1803

 

Demanding the countries to inspect cargo to and from Iran of aircraft and vessels owned or operated by Iran Air Cargo and Islamic republic of Iran Shipping Line, and to exercise vigilance in cooperation with Iranian banks, particularly Melli Bank and Saderat Bank, imposing financial and travel bans on persons and legal entities and asking governments to withdraw financial support of Iranian firms are some of these sanctions.

 

The whole process of passing the resolution took some months. Since resolution 1747 was approved on 24^th of March 2007 (4^th of Farvardin 1386), United States had been struggling to make the best of this unanimous resolution and prepare the grounds for approval of a tougher resolution.

 

But from the beginning it was obvious that America can neither pass the next resolution quickly nor gain the support of other members of Security Council to pass this sanction. Iran’s success in reaching an agreement with IAEA for formulation of a modality plan in order to resolve the remaining problems set the scene for opposition of Security Council members with adoption of another sanction resolution before the release of Elbaradei’s report on the remaining problems of Iran’s nuclear program.

 

The opposing countries argued that there is no reason to extend sanctions on Iran while the country is negotiating with IAEA on clearing up the remaining problems. They also expressed their concern if the new resolution could affect Iran-IAEA relations. Elbaradei was also concerned if the new resolution may hamper Iran’s cooperation with IAEA.

 

On the other hand, release of a report by 16 US intelligence agencies that confirmed non-existence of any military agenda in Iran’s nuclear program was another blow against Bush’s reasoning on the necessity of approving another sanction resolution. This report which had put the White House officials in a state of shock for some while became a tool for those against sanctions to assert that there is no reason to agree with new sanctions while Iran is negotiating with International Atomic Energy Agency and based on NIE’s estimation, Iran’s nuclear program has a non-military nature.

 

It was from this point that the United States focused on Iran’s non-compliance with UNSC’s previous resolutions. In other words, while previously America drew attention of other countries towards Iran’s military goals and non-transparency in its previous nuclear activities to convince them for further sanctions, after the release of NIE report and progress in Iran-IAEA negotiations, non-compliance with resolutions 1737 and 1747 was exploited by US.

 

Concluding the six remaining problems that were addressed in IAEA’s recent report actually put the United States in the weaker position. That’s why from a while ago Elbaradei was put under pressure not to conclude Iran’s case on remaining problems. For this reason alleged studies claimed by America received more attention in Elbaradei’s latest report and were mentioned as the only remaining problem by IAEA Chairman.

 

US consultations with other members of 5+1 to pass another resolution started since a few months ago. America’s strategy in the beginning was to gain the consent of 5+1 for a new resolution (whatever it may be) and next, exploit the consent of permanent members for new sanctions to exert pressure on non-permanent members of the Security Council so that they agree with the approval of the resolution.

 

Among the UNSC non-permanent members, Libya, South Africa, Vietnam, and Indonesia expressed their opposition to any hasty measure taken by the council. South Africa stated that Elbaradei’s report must be released before any talks about the next resolution. This postponed the course for one month.

 

Immediately after Elbaradei’s report was published, United States handed out the draft resolution to non-permanent members and asked them to give their opinion shortly.

 

Initial abstinence of the aforementioned four countries led America and its allies to urge the countries, whether in their capitals or in New York, for agreement. Most conclusive here was Sarkozy’s attempts to convince the heavy-weight NAM member, South Africa. Ultimately, it was only Indonesia who cast an abstention vote.

 

It was predictable from the beginning that non-aligned members of the Security Council lack either the power or the political will to stand against pressures of the United States and its friends and the most they could do would be boycotting the voting session or casting an abstention vote. Most of these countries have friendly relationships with Iran but due to increasing international pressures they preferred to vote in favor of the proposed resolution.

 

The affirmative vote of all the members of Security Council really counted for America, so that it could show there’s unanimity on Iran’s nuclear activities. United States’ consent to approve the resolution with 14 affirmative votes occurred after it became sure Indonesia’s support can't be secured.

 

In the current circumstances the question is about America’s next step. It is even possible that in the upcoming meeting of IAEA’s Board of Governors in Vienna America tries to invest on negative points in Elbaradei’s report and pass another resolution in Board of Governors. Recent remarks of Elbaradei in the gathering of ambassadors in Vienna calling for further transparency by Iran in answering the raised questions on ‘alleged studies’ have prepared the grounds for such a measure.

 

Definitely America and its allies try to maintain the current pace and pave the way for approval of another resolution 3 months after the period specified in resolution 1803, by urging Elbaradei to pursue the issue of alleged studies on the one hand, and increasing international pressures for enforcement of resolutions 1737, 1747, and 1803. Clearly pressures by United States and its allies to impose further unilateral sanctions on Iran will continue.