IAEA votes 27-3 to refer Iran to UN Security Council

The IAEA voted 27-3 to refer Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council.

There were 5 abstentions, and Cuba, Venezuela and Syria, voted against the resolution.

This is a LONG way from sanctions or any other positive action, especially since the text of the resolution will be held in abeyance for five weeks to a meet a condition for approval set by Russia and China.

Iran of course, went ballistic, denouncing the decision, ending UN inspections and going full throttle ahead with their illicit uranium enrichment and research. The timing of the referral to the Security Council once again points to what I reported on last week...that Iran has a nuclear weapons test scheduled for March 20, to coincide with Noruz, the Iranian New Year.

The real loser in the Vienna meeting was Israel, which watched as the US caved to pressure by some of the European memebers and Egypt and the non-aligned bloc to include a measure supporting the creation of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, a code for Israel’s disarmament. This was done to facillitate the passage of the measure by a large majority.

The resolution stated “that a solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and… the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery.”

This linkage between Iran’s violations of its commitments under international treaty and the Israel, who has never signed the non-proliferation treaty and has yet to even acknowledge that it has nuclear weapons is something the Arabs have been dreaming about for years.

And it was handed to them on a platter by none other than our own Condi Rice in a telephone call between her and Egyptian foreign minister Aboul Gheit.

Its acceptance now clears the way for the same linkage in the Security Council debate on Iran. And it gives Teheran a whole new set of maneuvers and added leverage: before halting their own program, they can demand that the entire Middle East be `disarmed' - first and foremost Israel. And the reference to weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery would also require Israel to give up its long-range missiles....`for peace'.

It's a no win situation for Israel; if they refuse to yield to the pressure, they will be held up before the world as `warmongers' and an obstruction to peace. If they give in, especially if some meaningless security guarantees are involved, they give up their major security deterent to invasion and seal their own death warrant.

I get a distinct feeling of deja vu here. I hope I'm wrong.