Huqul al-Nakhl

Transforming diplomacy to showing off, action to presentation, and pressure to protecting honor are the most important yard sticks of the present age. The issue of resolution 1835 shows all of these. Yesterday morning, the Security Council of the United Nations issued a resolution against Iran. The writers confessed to the fact and the text showed that it was only an emphasis of previous resolutions and that there was nothing new in it. After the resolution was passed, the American who seemed excited immediately tried to clarify the purpose of the P5+1 from this move so that no misunderstanding could remain. Rice, in the first minutes after the resolution was passed, told Reuters that Iran should recognize that the P5+1 is still strong. After her other foreign ministers made similar statements explaining the reasons behind the resolution. David Miliband, who has always been severely against Iran, told a French news agency that this resolution shows that the will of six powers in the world in regards to the Iranian nuclear program has not weakened. Frank-Walter Steinmeier showed his views in a prettier and clearer statement. The press in New York wrote narrated him saying that there was no new sanctions in the resolution against Iran, but it was a move made so that Iran would not become happy over the differences that arose in the P5+1.

Allow me to start the discussion by asking a question: What message should Iran take from the resolution? America, and apparently all of the six nations of the group, want Iran to take the message that the internal differences of the six nations was really a mistake in calculations made by Iran and that all of these countries are united in preventing a nuclear Iran. The recent debates in regards to Georgia and other issues, whatever they are, do not make any difference in relation to Iran. They are still firm in whatever was previously written in resolutions drafted by the Security Council of the United Nations. But, the truth is that 1835 can, in no way, relate such a message. Rather, the opposite. Just as many political analogists in Tehran conclude, the issuing of this resolution and the words that the western politicians said in regards to explaining their actions all show that Iran made the correct calculations. 1835 is nothing but a small Band-Aid placed over the deep wounds of differences that the P5+1 have. It is interesting that western politicians said that their purpose was to prevent Iran from becoming happier. It was a way of coming together despite differences and showing how they will react to Iran not hiding their differences which are clearer than the sun.

If we go a little bit back in the past the issue will become clearer. After the latest developments in Georgia where the west and Russia stood up, face to face, for the first time after the Cold War, the cooperation of the P5+1 felt a shock in regards to Iran. Some Russian and European sources wrote in the first days that the first sacrifice of this situation, before Georgia, will be the P5+1’s efforts for cooperation in quelling Iran’s nuclear program. A few days after the fighting the analysis was seen in almost all of the world’s media that great diplomacy has ended and Russia will not longer continue its cooperation with the west, including in regards to Iran’s nuclear program. Inside Iran, although America’s efforts to create divisions in the Caucuses were rebuked, but nobody believed that the problems in Georgia would take Russia out of the western camp and make them join with Iran. Almost all people inside Iran believed that Russia has always dealed with Iran and will continue to do this. They benefit from this and this is exactly what happened. Meanwhile, it is not necessarily because of Russia’s resistance, rather it is mostly because of the successful and effective resistance of Iran that the pressure on Iran has increased and sanctions of become more severe. The Georgia issue was only a small aid to this process.

full article: www.insight-info.com