by Michel Chossudovsky
June 11, 2010
"A sitting duck is a defenseless victim,
an easy target, vulnerable to attack."
What this latest resolution suggests is that
Washington and its
NATO allies not only control the UN
Security Council, they ultimately also call the shots on foreign policy
in Moscow and Beijing.
This Security Council resolution should dispel the myth of competing
super powers. Both China and Russia are an appendage of the New World
As far as international diplomacy is concerned, both China and Russia
are "Paper Tigers", with no teeth. "'Paper Tiger' [纸老虎 (zhǐ lǎohǔ)],
meaning something that seems as threatening as a tiger, but is really
Both China and Russia are the victims of their own failed decisions
within the United Nations Security Council.
An attack on Iran would immediately lead to military escalation. Syria
and Lebanon would also be targeted. The entire Middle East Central Asian
region would flare up, a situation which could potentially evolve
towards a World War III scenario.
In a very real sense, the
US-NATO-Israel military adventure
threatens the future of humanity.
The UN Security Council voted on June 9 the
imposition of a fourth round of sweeping sanctions against The Islamic
Republic of Iran, which include an expanded arms embargo as well "tougher
In a bitter irony, this resolution was passed within days of the United
Nations Security Council's outright refusal to adopt a motion condemning
Israel for its attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters.
It also followed the holding of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) conference in Washington under UN auspices, which called for the
establishment, in its final resolution, of a nuclear free Middle East as
well as the dismantling of Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal. Israel is
considered to be the World's sixth nuclear power, with, according to Jane
Defense, between 100 and 300 nuclear warheads. (Analysts:
Israel viewed as world's 6th nuclear power, Israel News, Ynetnews,
April 10, 2010).
Iran in contrast has no known nuclear weapons
UNSC Resolution 1929 is based on a fundamental falsehood. It upholds the
notion that Iran is an upcoming nuclear power and a threat to global
security. It also provides a green light to the US-NATO-Israel military
alliance to threaten Iran with a pre-emptive punitive nuclear attack, using
the UN Security Council as rubber stamp.
The Security Council exercises double standards in the application of
sanctions: Whereas Iran is the target of punitive threats, Israel's
extensive nuclear arsenal, is either ignored or tacitly accepted by "the
For Washington, Israel's nukes are an instrument
of peace in the Middle East.
Moreover, whereas all fingers are pointed at Iran which does not possess
nuclear weapons, five so-called "non-nuclear" European states including
Belgium, Holland, Germany, Italy and Turkey not only possess tactical
nuclear weapons under national command, these warheads are deployed and
targeted at Iran.
Resolution 1929 (June 9, 2010):
“7. Decides that Iran shall not acquire an
interest in any commercial activity in another State involving uranium
mining, production or use of nuclear materials and technology as listed
in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 1, in particular uranium-enrichment and
reprocessing activities, all heavy-water activities or
technology-related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear
weapons, and further decides that all States shall prohibit such
investment in territories under their jurisdiction by Iran, its
nationals, and entities incorporated in Iran or subject to its
jurisdiction, or by persons or entities acting on their behalf or at
their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them;
“8. Decides that all States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply,
sale or transfer to Iran, from or through their territories or by their
nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their
flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their
territories, of any battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large calibre
artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships,
missiles or missile systems .... , decides further that all States shall
prevent the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through
their territories of technical training, financial resources or
services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply,
sale, transfer, provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms
and related materiel, and, in this context, calls upon all States to
exercise vigilance and restraint over the supply, sale, transfer,
provision, manufacture and use of all other arms and related materiel;"
Council Imposes Additional Sanctions on Iran, Voting 12 in Favour to 2
Against, with 1 Abstention, Includes complete text of UNSC
Resolution 1929, UN News, June 9, 2010, emphasis added, )
The Arms Embargo -
Implications for Russia and China
Both the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China have caved in
to US pressures and voted in favor of a resolution, which is not only
detrimental to Iran's security, but which seriously weakens and undermines
their strategic role as potential competing World powers on the Eurasian
The resolution strikes at the very heart of the structure of military
alliances. It prevents Russia and China to sell both strategic and
conventional weapons and military technology to their de facto ally: Iran.
In fact, that was one of major objectives of Resolution 1929, which
Washington is intent upon enforcing.
At the same time, by barring Iran from purchasing conventional military
equipment, the resolution prevents Iran from defending itself from a
The resolution, were it to be fully enforced, would not only invalidate
ongoing bilateral military cooperation agreements with Iran, it would create
a wedge in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
It would also significantly weaken trade and investment relations between
Iran and its Russian and Chinese partners. The financial and banking
provisions in the resolution also point to Washington's resolve to not only
isolate Iran but also to destabilize its financial system.
Washington is intent upon enforcing this resolution.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has appointed
Robert Einhorn, Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control, as
U.S. coordinator for the implementation of the sanctions regime directed
against both Iran and North Korea:
"U.S. President Barack Obama hailed the
resolution, saying it will put in place the toughest sanctions ever
faced by the Iranian government and send an "unmistakable message" to
Tehran about the international community's commitment to stopping the
spread of nuclear weapons."
appoints coordinator for sanctions against Iran, DPRK, Xinhua,
June 10, 2010)
"We expect every country to aggressively
implement Resolution 1929" said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.
Were China and Russia to decide not to abide by
the resolution's provisions, particularly those relating to weapons sales to
Iran (art. 8), Washington would use this as an opportunity to engage in an
increasingly confrontational diplomacy in relation to Beijing and Moscow.
The resolution is also intended to establish a US led hegemony in the
production and export of advanced weapons systems. It is is heavy blow,
almost a "death sentence", for China and Russia's lucrative international
weapons trade, which competes with the US, UK, France, Germany and Israel.
In the post-Soviet era, the arms trade has become a central component of
Russia's fragile economy.
The potential repercussions on Russia's balance
of payments are far-reaching.
Missile Defense System
UN Security Council resolutions are an integral part of US foreign policy.
They are on the drawing board of Washington's
think tanks, including the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation.
In this regard, it is worth noting that the
substance of article 8 of UNSC Resolution 1929 (June 9, 2010) was contained
in a January 2010 report of the Heritage Foundation, which calls for
"blocking arms sales to Iran" including Russia's S-300 missiles:
"Washington and its allies should make every
effort to deprive Iran of foreign arms transfers, particularly the
impending sale of Russian S-300 surface to air missiles, which could
provoke Israel to strike sooner rather than later. Stronger
multinational efforts also need to be made to prevent Iran from
transferring arms to Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorist groups, which
pose a threat not only to Israel, but to stability in Lebanon, Egypt,
On November 3, Israeli naval forces
intercepted the Francop, an Antigua-flagged cargo ship that was
transporting about 500 tons of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah, via
Syria. The U.S. should press other allies to join in giving greater
assistance to Israeli efforts to intercept Iranian arms flows,
particularly to Hezbollah and Hamas."
An Israeli Preventive Attack on Iran's Nuclear
Sites: Implications for the U.S, The Heritage Foundation,
Washington, DC, January 2010)
Did Moscow assess the implications of the
proposed arms embargo?
Immediately following the adoption of the UNSC resolution on June 9th,
several Russian press reports indicated that the sale of Russian S-300
missiles to Iran would be frozen, despite assurances by foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov that the UNSC resolution would not affect the air-defense
says in talks with Iran on new nuclear plants, Haaretz, June 10,
These contradictory statements suggest that
there are significant divisions within the Russian leadership, without which
Russia would have duly exercised its veto power in the UN Security Council.
Russia's S-300 Surface to Air
Without Russian military aid, Iran is a "sitting
Its air defense system depends on continued
Russian military cooperation. Moreover, without Iran, Russia would be
constrained to selling military equipment to countries in the US-NATO orbit.
Russia to offset loss of Iran arms sales with Iraqi,
Afghan deals, Russia, RIA Novosti, June 11, 2010)
attack on Iran
The World is at dangerous crossroads.
The real threat to global security emanates from
the US-NATO-Israel alliance. The UN Security Council directly serves the
interests of the Western military alliance.
The Security Council resolution grants a de
facto "green light" to wage a pre-emptive war against Iran, which has been
on the Pentagon's drawing board since 2004.
"An operational plan to wage aerial attacks
on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential
military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed."
(For further details see Michel
Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006).
In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered
USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency plan", which would "include a large-scale
air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear
weapons." (Philip Giraldi,
Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War, The
American Conservative, 2 August 2005).
Under the Obama administration, the threats have become increasingly
pervasive and far more explicit than under the NeoCons.
In October 2009, The American Enterprise
Institute (AEI) organized an Event at Washington's Wohlstetter
Conference Center on "Should Israel Attack Iran?":
"Iran's nuclear weapons development
continues apace, threatening the security of its neighbors and the
international community. According to a recent survey by the Pew
Research Center, more than 60 percent of the American public believes
preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons warrants military
Israel's deputy foreign minister, Daniel Ayalon, emphasized on
September 21 that Israel has “not taken any option off the table” when
it comes to countering the Iranian threat.
The same day, Israel's top general, chief of
staff Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, made it clear that he would not
rule out a military strike on Iran's nuclear installations, repeating
that "Israel has the right to defend itself and all options are on the
As the debate intensifies over how to
respond most effectively to Iran's provocations, it is timely to explore
the strategic and legal parameters of a potential Israeli strike against
the Islamic Republic and provide some thorough analysis about
implications for the United States.
(American Enterprise Institute,
Israel Attack Iran?, October 2009, emphasis added)
From a military standpoint, Israel could not
undertake a unilateral attack on Iran without the active coordination of the
"As President Obama extends “an open hand”,
seeking direct talks with Tehran in his attempt to halt its nuclear
program, Mrs Clinton appeared [June 2009] ready to unnerve the Iranian
leadership with talk of a pre-emptive strike “the way that we did attack
She said that she was trying to put herself
in the shoes of the Iranian leadership, but added that Tehran “might
have some other enemies that would do that [deliver a pre-emptive
strike] to them”.
It was a clear reference to Israel, where
Binyamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, has talked about the possibility
of military action to halt Iran’s nuclear program - something he views
as a threat to the Jewish state.
(Don’t discount Israel pre-emptive
strike, Hillary Clinton warns Iran, Times Online, June 8, 2009)
In April 2010 the message was crystal clear:
"would use atomic weapons only in 'extreme
circumstances' and would not attack non-nuclear states, but singled out
"outliers" Iran and North Korea as exceptions."
(Iran to Take US to UN Over Obama's
Threat to Use Nuclear Weapons against Iran, AlJazeera, April 11, 2010).
Defence Secretary Robert Gates explained in a
"that Washington was making exceptions of
Tehran and Pyongyang because they had defied repeated UN Security
Council ultimatums over their nuclear programs."
UN "Green Light" for a World
War Three Scenario?
Is this latest Security Council resolution "the green light" which
Washington has been seeking?
The substance of the Security Council resolution is also directed at Iran
allies: China and Russia.
Ironically, while China and Russia failed to exercise their veto power, they
are nonetheless the object of veiled US threats. China is surrounded by US
military facilities. US missiles in Poland and the Caucasus are pointed
towards Russian cities. More recently, the Obama administration has called
for the extension of the sanctions regime directed against Russia's ally,
Washington has also announced that,
"The Pentagon is preparing to embark on a
mini-building boom in Central Asia, which would include the construction
of strategic US facilities military "in all five Central Asian states,
including Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan."
Defense Dollars Building Boom:
Pentagon Looks to Construct New Military Bases in Central Asia, Eurasianet, June 6, 2010).
These various military cooperation agreements
with former Soviet republics are not only intent upon weakening the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the CSTO, they are part of
the US-NATO strategic encirclement of Russia and China.
What this latest resolution suggests is that Washington and its NATO allies
not only control the UN Security Council, they ultimately also call the
shots on foreign policy in Moscow and Beijing.
This Security Council resolution should dispel the myth of competing super
powers. Both China and Russia are an appendage of the New World Order.
As far as international diplomacy is concerned, both China and Russia are
"Paper Tigers", with no teeth. "'Paper Tiger' [纸老虎 (zhǐ lǎohǔ)], meaning
something that seems as threatening as a tiger, but is really harmless."
Both China and Russia are the victims of their own failed decisions within
the United Nations Security Council.
An attack on Iran would immediately lead to military escalation. Syria and
Lebanon would also be targeted. The entire Middle East Central Asian region
would flare up, a situation which could potentially evolve towards a World
War III scenario.
In a very real sense, the US-NATO-Israel military adventure threatens the
future of humanity.