Bonkers Bolton told State Department reporters in Washington this week that if Iran’s government doesn’t halt enrichment work and somehow prove its nuclear effort is peaceful, the "likely next step" would be a "Chapter VII resolution under the UN Charter."
Article 39 of Chapter VII says –
"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."
But Article 40 of Chapter VII says –
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable.
Article 41 provides for measures "not including the use of armed forces."
Article 42 provides for measures including the use of armed forces.
Bolton told reporters he would seek a Security Council Resolution that doesn’t just say "we urge you to comply” with resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency, "but we require you to comply with the IAEA resolutions."
Bolton needs to re-read the Charter. Even if he gets his resolution, it won – t require Iran to comply with IAEA resolutions by a certain date. It will "call on" – under Article 40 – both Iran and the IAEA Board to resolve the issue, diplomatically.
And, as it happens, the IAEA Board is clearly in the wrong in demanding that Iran ratify and continue to adhere to an Additional Protocol.
Furthermore, the IAEA Director-General has repeatedly reported to the IAEA Board that as best he can tell all Iranian materials and activities that should have been declared, have been declared, and there is "no indication" that any declared materials have ever been diverted to a nuclear weapons program.
Nevertheless, Bolton says that at the end of the deadline he hopes a resolution would set, the US would consider seeking a resolution – presumably under Article 41 – that imposes sanctions on Iran.
China and Russia, both members of the IAEA Board and permanent members of the Security Council, might allow an Article 40 resolution, calling on the IAEA Board and Iran to settle their differences. But they would never allow a determination under Article 39 that Iran’s failure to indefinitely suspend Safeguarded activities constitutes a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression."
That helps explain why Condi and Bolton have urged the other permanent council members and Germany to "take into account" at this next Security Council meeting Iran’s "calls for Israel to be wiped off the map," as well as its "support" for Syria and Hizbollah in Lebanon.
But it doesn’t quite explain why Congresspersons across the political spectrum parrot back the Condi-Bolton line on the Sunday talk shows.
Even Congressman Ron Paul is puzzled.
"Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government.
"Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had.
"It’s amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the neocons are willing to use the same arguments against Iran.
"It’s frightening to see how easily Congress, the media, and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq."
But maybe Congresspersons, the media and the people just appear to accept those arguments.
Maybe it doesn’t really matter to them why we invaded Iraq. Or why we’re going to gut the nuke proliferation prevention regime in order to establish a "strategic partnership" with India. Or why we’re building a zillion-dollar untested antiballistic missile defense system in Alaska to defend against non-existent North Korean nuke-tipped ballistic missiles. Or even why we – re going to attack Iran later this year or next.
Maybe what matters most to all of them are good jobs for Americans.
And as Karen Kwiatkowski remarked to Brian Lamb in her absolutely stunning interview on C-SPAN’s Q&A about the making of the documentary "Why We Fight," the only good jobs we have left in this country, that we haven’t already exported, are those in the so-called "defense" and aerospace industries.
Maybe.
