Iran issue at UN again

With the UN Security Council set to reconvene over the Iranian nuclear issue, the CS Monitor tries to lay out the likely and possible moves to come:

The confrontation returns Friday to the United Nations Security Council, where the Iranian regime is hoping a divide-and-conquer strategy will prevent the UN body from taking any coercive action to limit its nuclear program. It may be a bold gambit: Just a month ago, the Council acted - unanimously - to give Iran 30 days to show it had ceased uranium enrichment.

But the Security Council, in fact, is split over the need for action against a defiant Tehran - increasing the likelihood that steps such as economic sanctions will be taken not by the UN, but by a "coalition of the willing" of the US and equally adamant allies.

...The United States...has been emphasizing its preference for united Security Council action against Iran. But it is also floating with allies the possibility of steps outside the UN if the Security Council proves unable to bridge its differences - essentially with the US, Britain, and France on one side, and Russia and China on the other.

...The Iranian game plan appears to be to set up a confrontation with the West that not only divides the international community but shatters any consensus against its nuclear program, analysts say.

...Initially, the US, Britain, and France are set on seeking something more from the Council than the simple "presidential statement" that was approved a month ago. This time they want a so-called "Chapter 7 resolution," which would designate Iran a threat to international security - a step that would open the door to sanctions and eventually even military action.

In the days leading up to Council deliberations, the US is reiterating that it is not seeking sanctions at this time. "The resolution we are contemplating ... would not be a sanctions resolution," the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said Tuesday. "So from our perspective, we are going to take it one step at a time."

But for China and Russia, a Chapter 7 resolution puts the Council on a course of action, including sanctions, even if the text does not specifically call for it. And it also starts looking increasingly like the diplomatic road the US took before going to war with Iraq, some experts say.

That helps explain why neither veto-wielding nation is likely to go along with a tough new resolution. "I think the Chapter 7 route is dead on arrival," says Mr. Cirincione. "The US can keep talking about it, but our own policies have doomed it."

Most analysts believe the UN route is a dead end, and that comes across in the remarks above.

Things will likely come to a head at some point once the UN stops being pliant with US wishes. I expect the EU, which has been on board with US actions till now, to jump ship by then.

Once that happens, it should become clearer how far the crazies are willing to go. If the military option is pursued, I would not discount Israel acting first, "pre-emptively" of course, and the US subsequently getting drawn into the conflict.

As I've said before, this would help tidy up the issue of domestic support for an attack. Propaganda and scare-mongering have had an effect, but I'm not sure an outright assault from the US will fly with the American public. Some kind of pretext -- a manufactured one, no doubt -- will have to be found.