UN Futility

Just a couple of months ago, after Iran had made it crystal-clear to the entire world that it had no intention of stopping its nuclear weapons development, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1696. As the Wall Street Journal summarizes in a commentary piece ($) this morning:

In July, the Council adopted Resolution 1696, which noted “with serious concern that . . . Iran has not taken the steps required of it by the [International Atomic Energy Agency] Board of Governors.” The Council went on to express “its intention . . . to adopt appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to persuade Iran to comply with this resolution. . . .” Article 41 refers to all legally binding measures short of war — sanctions, that is — to bring states into compliance with U.N. resolutions. The Resolution said Iran must cease enriching uranium by August 31, a deadline Tehran has openly flouted.

So, serious consequences? Not quite. Chinese Middle East envoy Sun Bigan has rejected sanctions on Iran as “detrimental not only to the region but also to ourselves” — the latter a reference to China’s oil imports from Iran, up 56% from last year. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov — who is selling Iran a $700 million air-defense system — also says sanctions won’t work. That sentiment was echoed earlier this week by France’s Jacques Chirac, whom the Bush Administration has claimed is a stalwart ally in stopping Iran. “I am never favorable to sanctions,” said the French President, adding that, if they are unavoidable, they should be “moderate and adapted."

In other words, it has taken less than a month for the deadline set by Resolution 1696 to prove to be absolutely meaningless, something Mr. Ahmadinejad predicted in April. Why then would the Permanent Five risk their credibility as an institution by setting a deadline in the first place? Why threaten sanctions if they have no intention of imposing them?

A very good question.

The WSJ’s editors go on to theorize that this is all part of a deliberate effort to persuade America that we can just “live with” an Iranian nuclear weapons capability. In other words, they speculate that the U.N. is actually the manifestation of a vast anti-American conspiracy — and they’re serious.

I think they’re wrong about that, just as most conspiracy theories are wrong. Much more likely, as always, is to find a way to explain the observations with some good old human stupidity. And I don’t think that’s difficult in this case, as the U.N.'s ineffective posturing and drawing lines on parchment is strongly reminiscent of the European’s “handling” of Hitler just prior to his commencing hostilities. Read about the period, and you’ll find that organized groups of liberal-minded fellows who were very adverse to open confrontation with Hitler made agreements with him, over and over. And over and over, Hitler ignored them, using bombast and propaganda to “explain” his actions. The world took a depressingly long time to finally wake up and realize what a monster Hitler really was. Before this moment of clarity (which came when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939), the historical record is full of events that look distressingly similar to the way the world is dealing with Iran today.

I have little doubt that if Iran actually manages to obtain a nuclear weapon, the world will have another such moment of clarity. And it will be even more clarifying than Hitler’s invasion of Poland, as it will likely involve the demise of an entire city. Tel Aviv or another Israeli city would be most likely, but I wouldn’t rule out a European or even American target, as Iran has quite sophisticated delivery systems, including very quiet diesel-electric submarines. My fond hope (which keeps getting dashed) is that the world will somehow come to a consensus before such an awful event, but I’m getting less optimistic about this as each day passes…