The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations (UN) nuclear watchdog, has voted in favor of a resolution that reports Iran's case to the UN Security Council, paving the way for possible sanctions. The resolution was passed with twenty seven countries voting in favor, and three against (Syria, Venezuela and Cuba) . Five countries abstained (Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa).
India voted in favor of the resolution. This is a most unfortunate decision by the Indian government. It is a good example of how regard for immediate and range of the moment benefits trumped the long term considerations. It is perfectly clear that India decided to vote against Iran purely to ingratiate itself with the US.
It has been said before that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons under the leadership of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an eventuality that should be prevented at any cost. But I am not sure if this is the way to achieve that objective. Very likely sanctions will be imposed and innocent civilians will suffer as a consequence. Iran is years away from acquiring nuclear weapons even if it wanted to, and this precipitate action is totally uncalled for and only reflects the arrogance of the United States.
The double standards of the US have long been clear. They were reaffirmed during the deliberation on this resolution. The US vehemently opposed the inclusion of the clause, "A solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and to realizing the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery”, promoted by Egypt. Obviously the US did not want its ally in the region, Israel, to halt its secret nuclear weapons program. They gave in only after intense backing of the clause by the European countries, Russia and China.
Article comments
1 - RedTard
One main difference your side never takes into account is that Israel's leaders don't routinely threaten to wipe Iran off of the map. Just a little insignificant point.
Also, if the IAEA should not recommend or enforce action then why does the organization exist in the first place?
Anti-Americans around the world complain when we use military force or when we use diplomatic or economic pressure, please make up your minds. As for the technology transfer, you are welcome to turn it down and pay the high cost of research and development just like we did. The vote still would have passed and you would have been SOL.
2 - Aaman
I believe the author's point was that arm-twisting is no way to get agreement - that's a global dictatorship, not a comity of nations.