William O. Beeman--More on U.N. Security Council Resolutions against Iran

Many commentators claim that Iran should be denounced, if not attacked for ignoring seven U.N. Security Council Resolutions calling for it to stop uranium enrichment. (Iran has the inalienable right to enrich uranium as granted to it as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The U.N. Resolutions single out Iran as the only Treaty signatory being called on to suspend this inalienable right).

I have been criticized by neoconservatives for calling the U.N. Sanctions into question. 

It is the duty of the Security Council not to make resolutions that are based on unsound premises. It is too bad that the Council is imperfect in this regard. In the Iranian case, the United States has blocked any arguments in the subsequent resolutions that Iran has in fact demonstrated that it has no nuclear weapons program, thus fulfilling the point of the original Resolution 1696 that "confidence building" has indeed been achieved by any objective measure. I invite all  readers to actually read the resolutions. They all point back to the original resolution 1696.

One would think that six years of continual, unbroken, authoritative statements from the United Nations' own bodies as well as the United States and Israeli authorities and reporting organizations that Iran has no nuclear weapons program would provide enough "confidence building." However, the United States and its allies steadfastly ignore the conclusions of their own inspections and intelligence bodies. The vendetta against Iran is so strong and so ideologically driven that it promulgates even nonsensical resolutions.

Not to stray too far from the Iranian case, but I am sure most readers can think of a few Security Council Resolutions denouncing the actions of U.N. member states that he would argue are without foundation. Indeed one need look no further than our own former Ambassador, John Bolton to see reams of criticism of this sort.  I am equally sure that a large number of readers, particularly Republicans, would be able and willing to denounce these resolutions as without substance based on what they may or may not feel about their foundation.

That said, I am in good company in denouncing and pointing out the flaws in Security Council resolutions as much as Ambassador Bolton or numerous members of Congress. It may not change the mindset of those who want to use these Resolutions as some kind of justification for attacking Iran, but I hope it will at least prompt a few people to actually read them rather than invoking them in a ritual manner, and then proclaiming, ex cathedra, that no one dare question them because they don't have the "authority" to do so.

Bill Beeman
University of Minnesota