Treacherous Behaviour: Russia, China and Iran

This weekend's events further complicate the West's attempt to prevent the emergence of a nuclear Iran and highlight the unfortunate fact that bullies such as Iran, Russia and China ignore words -- action is their lingua franca. Full embargos, enforced immediately against Iran must be imposed before our only option is a military war. Will the European Union, the United Nations and the U.S take such action?

On Friday the EU imposed new sanctions that faintly expand the pre-existing U.N sanctions against Iran. The sanctions deny public loans or export credits to companies trading with Iran.

The EU and UN must be applauded for at least attempting to enforce sanctions against Iran, with a view to seeking a diplomatic solution. Their efforts, however, are not enough. The new EU sanctions merely cajole EU members into "showing restraint when granting new public loans for trade with Iran ... (and) being vigilant on activities taken by financial institutions with banks based in Iran."

If the idea is to force Iran to freeze its nuclear program, the sanctions must make a severe, serious impact on the Iranian economy. This is achievable only with sanctions operating against all dealings with Iran, including refined petroleum, re-insurance programs, Iranian products and against any other country that continues to deal with Iran. This would involve isolating Russia, China, Switzerland and Germany who continue to trade with Iran and jeopardise the security of the international community.

The EU is the umbrella body organising the P5+1 team of negotiators with Iran. The group includes the five permanent Security Council members consisting of the U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China, plus Germany. By what right do Russia and China remain included in this group? In light of their continued dealings with Iran, the EU must dismiss Russia and China from this group, and pressure the UN to take similar action as regards their membership of the Security Council. Their individual country's dealings with Iran take precedence for them--precendence over peace.

Russia continues to increase its business relations with Iran. This, together with its recent violent offensive against the democratically elected government of Georgia, clearly demonstrates that Russia is a belligerent aggressor willing to wage war on a sovereign nation and its civilians. Russia can no longer pretend to be concerned with world diplomacy and certainly does not deserve a seat in the G8. The international community has a moral obligation to demand Russia remove its troops from Georgia. If it does not, Russia, as with Iran, should face economic and political sanctions.

Russia and China pay lip service in their superficial support of UN and EU sanctions but in reality they are driven by selfish intent rather than the security of their citizens or the international community. They leverage their power within the UN and together with Germany and Switzerland, in the EU, to block any vigorous sanction against Iran. When European countries halt their economic deals with Iran, Russia and China seem only too willing to step in. Russia and China cripple the efforts of European governments to prevent the emergence of a nuclear and dangerously powerful Iran. The threat to world peace apparently does not make any impression on them and their commercial interests.

In China's case, rather than work toward using its influence to rein in Iran, China has filled the vacuum left by European countries. When the EU stopped trading petroleum with Iran in 2007, China stepped forward to fill the void. So too, Sinopec, the main oil company in China, signed a $100 billion deal with Iran and plans to develop new oilfields in Iran in exchange for 150, 000 barrels of oil, daily, to China, for the next 20 years.

Iran's malignant intentions for the destruction of Israel and its supporters are announced, loud and clear to all who listen. Why, then, is the international community slow to act? We cannot wait for Iran, the world's largest sponsor of terror, to give nuclear material or bomb-making plans to terrorists who would unhesitatingly place a nuclear bomb in the heartlands of Western cities.

The reaction of the international community is truly pathetic. The U.S and U.K are now calling for stark and severe sanctions that target Iran's economy and oil. They must stop talking, and start acting. There must also impose severe consequences for breaches of these sanctions.

Without hard-hitting sanctions, military action against Iran is inevitable. Dealing with the vice of Iran now is unpleasant, but dealing with a nuclear Iran will be a thousand times worse. Military war is the last thing that the international community wants. In war we can only be certain of where we begin; the end is unknown. An attack on Iran could expand into a regional war with Syria and Lebanon, the Emirates and possibly other Islamic states as well.

We have a small window of opportunity but it is closing. War is not inevitable yet, but, not for long? What are the EU, U.S. and U.N waiting for? How can they not see where their actions, or non-actions, are leading us? Western influence in the Middle East is weakening while that of Russia, China and Iran is strengthening. Without serious embargos backed by severe consequences, we will soon leave ourselves with no option other than war.

Comments

[bmora]

How can observer guarantee that Iran will use their nukes against Israel when, empirically, history proves that the only nation that will use the nuclear option against another state is the good ole' US of A. By that logic, we are the only nation in the world that should not have the nuclear bomb.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

A very well written article, but what a shame that it's filled with non-facts. An energy independent, possibly nuclear-armed Iran is inevitable. War is not. If all of the assertions put forth in this article were actually true I'd probably STILL come away with the impression that land-grabby, narcissistic and belligerent Israel is the problem, NOT Iran. Iran hasn't invaded another country in - what, 300 years? While Israel is all about imperialistic expansionism, in the pioneering spirit (if you want to call it that) of both the U.K. and the U.S.

[MajorKong]

So let me get this straight.

The Iranians are rational and therefore would behave rationally in response to sanctions. However, the Iranians are irrational and suicidal and therefore would not behave rationally in response to nuclear deterrence should they ever get a nuclear weapon.

They're also a huge, scary, imminent threat to our very existence, but we can take them out with 3 days of air strikes. They're somehow a grave threat and a pushover at the same time.

The cognitive dissonance is deafening sometimes.

[DXM]

Do we want $10+ per gallon gas? That's what sanctions against Iran and (ultimately) Russia is going to cost us. And as a result, only half measures will ever be taken by the US and (what's left of) our allies against these nations. We need to get rid of our dependence on oil (not just foreign oil because US oil is also a part of the world market) and move full speed ahead towards energy independence. Energy independence is also our independence from the nations who do not share our moral values.

[jhNY]

AIPAC reasoning seems to involve the falsification of terms for discussion and action from the outset. Why must we continue to endure the falsities re Iran's intention to destroy little Israel when nobody in Iran said any such thing? A bad translation wilfully repeated at high volume proves nothing except the willingness of the repeaters to spread falsehood so as to foment bloodshed. And why must military action be inevitable if Iran refuses to go along with the wishes of Europeans, Americans and Israelis?

Is Iran with nuclear weapons a scarier prospect than Red China with more of them in the '60's and '70's? How did the leaders of the day cope with the Chinese government and its nuclear arsenal? Was there a world war? A limited nuclear exchange? Can it really be that today's Iranians are even more indoctrinated and militarized than the Red Chinese during the cultural revolution?

And why would Iran not pursue weapons that would guarantee its sovereignty and the integrity of its borders from foreign invasion? The US, with over 150,00 troops in the region, regularly threatens violence against Iran, and to Iran's south, one of the largest, best-equipped armies on earth, Israel's, in addition to its conventional might, possesses over 150 nuclear weapons. Weapons which never seem pertinent to include in any discussion wherein the terms are laid out according to the Likudnik worldview..

[david louis]

Another excellent article Ms Fisher. Some very interesting insights into the recent behaviour of China. When will the west truly respond to the nuclear problem?

[supersilk]

Last week's events in Georgia have demonstrated beyond doubt that Russia can no longer be regarded as a responsible member of the international community. This is a throw-back to Cold War days, when the USSR would use its muscle to support undemocratic regimes in the Middle East as well as other regions of the world. As with the Cold War, the West cannot afford to shy away. Does it weaken the message if Ms Fisher is associated with the Israel project? Is not Israel the only democratic regime in the Middle East, with a free press, independent Courts and a legal system governed by the Rule of Law?

[Titonwan]

I don't know which is worse, AIPAC or the Neoconservatives. War hawks.

[joanndarc]

Could you please read an article there?
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/14/russia.georgia
Israeli Lobby has deep routes in mass media it seems.

[tcagle]

This article presents a fallacious false choice. Getting off oil, letting Israel fend for itself, and ceasing our own imperialistic moves makes more sense. If Israel wants good neighbors and defense provided for them 24/7, let them move to Nevada.

[Skua]

To put this in context, Ms. Fisher is writing on behalf of The Israel Project, a pro-Israel PR enterprise. If this truly reflects the opinion of the Israeli government, then we might as well all dust off our old fallout shelter brochures from 1958 or so. Ms. Fisher gives us two alternatives: nuclear war, or a blockade of Iran and all its trading partners:

"This would involve isolating Russia, China, Switzerland and Germany who continue to trade with Iran and jeopardise the security of the international community."

You have to read that sentence several times to fully grasp its otherworldly fantasy aspect. These countries have about five times the population of the US. There is no way the rest of the EU is going to isolate Germany. This idea is about as workable as flying sheep. Sometimes it is a good thing for your opponents to be insane, but not when nukes are involved.

Since this blockade of the many by the few cannot work, Ms. Fisher will in the end opt for nuclear war. And THAT would mean that Iran has no incentive not to opt for its own nuclear bombs. Who is the destabilizing influence here, I ask ....

[SomaMinneapolis]

Flying Sheep! Mon Dieu!