The Meaning of the UNSC Iran Vote

Were Russia and China given private assurances by Bush?

A Good Article
by Jorge Hirsch

"In the aftermath of the Dec. 23 United Nations Security Council unanimous vote imposing sanctions or Iran for failing to suspend uranium enrichment (see text of resolution here), one has to wonder: why did Russia and China go along with it? ......

.....Russia and China could have chosen to veto the resolution, or at least abstain. Instead, after negotiating to water it down, they voted for sanctions. Why?......

So I argue that Russia and China's vote is understandable only under the assumption that private discussions have been going on between them and the U.S. Their vote is understandable if in those private discussions:

* Bush strongly indicated that he would use military force if Russia and China didn't agree to support sanctions;
* Bush gave private assurances to Russia and China that he would not initiate military action against Iran without UNSC consent;
* Bush demanded that his private assurances remain private, arguing that making them public would undermine the diplomatic effort by reducing the pressure on Iran;
* Bush said that if his private assurances were made public deliberately or accidentally after the UNSC vote, they would no longer be binding.

A hint suggesting that such private assurances have been given is that Bush and Putin have publicly stressed the importance of a "unified position" on Iran. As long as there is a "unified position," Iran will not be attacked, because Putin would never agree to such a course of action.

Are Bush's Private Assurances Believable?

I will not make a judgment of how trustworthy President Bush is. However, the evidence clearly indicates that any private assurances given by Bush to Russia and China that he will not resort to military action against Iran were only given to induce them to support the UN action, and he has no intention of honoring them......

The final conditions for the impending military action are being rapidly put in place as we speak:

Dec. 19: U.S. is sending aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf to "warn" Iran
Dec. 20: Blair singles out Iran as the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East
Dec. 23: UNSC sanctions resolution passes

How will it get started? Either a Gulf-of-Tonkin-like incident, or an attack by Israel, or an incident in Iraq that will be blamed on Iran. Anything to provoke an Iranian response, argue "self-defense," and escalate the confrontation until it leads to taking out our big guns, nuclear weapons......."