Iran Nuclear Case to Be Judged by UN Security Council

Under pressure from the US, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has passed a resolution, passed by 27 votes to 3, calling on Iran to re-establish a freeze on uranium enrichment and consider halting construction of a heavy water reactor, which would be capable of producing plutonium that could be used for weapons. The case has been referred to the UN security council for further consideration.

In accordance with its mandate under the UN Charter, the Security Council may bring the case to a debate by the member states of the UN. This is normally followed by the issuing of a statement by the president of the Security Council with a summary of the discussion. The security council could impose sanctions on Iran if its nuclear activities are not in compliance with the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and are defined by the Security Council as a threat to international peace and security.

If economic sanctions are imposed by the Security Council, it is not impossible that Iran may retaliate by using it's oil supplies to adversely affect oil prices. China, Iran's biggest oil customer, has indicated that it may use its veto to stop the UN Security Council imposing anything stronger than censure. The next decision will come on 6 March when the UN will decide if it "can bring additional pressure to bear on Iran", said Peter Jenkins, UK envoy to the IAEA.

Britain, Germany and France, issued a joint statement saying the IAEA move sends; "a message of concern and a continuing lack of confidence in Iran's nuclear intentions." This is despite there being no evidence that Iran has any intentions of developing nuclear weapons.

If international pressure on Iran continues and the Iranian government feels these measures threaten it's right to develop nuclear energy as guaranteed by the non-proliferation treaty (of which Iran is a signatory ). As guaranteed by Article X of the NPT, Iran may withdraw from the treaty. This would present a serious situation for the international community. Non-proliferation efforts would have failed, putting the credibility of the NPT at risk and undermining the authority of the IAEA. This could lead to other states being willing to renounce the NPT in order to gain access to nuclear material and technology without international monitoring.

The US has been increasingly belligerent in it's attitude to Iran. The fear must be that the US is pushing towards some sort of military action against Iran, using a 'weapons of mass destruction' claim similar to that used as justification for the invasion of Iraq. It should be kept in mind that Iran has not violated international law. A nuclear energy program is acceptable under the NPT as long it is for civilian use, (of which there is no firm evidence at all at present to the contrary), and is monitored by the IAEA under international safeguards.