Why Tehran ignores the UN resolution

Iran claims that it is beyond the competence of the Security Council to adopt such discriminatory resolution. Iran insists that it is within its sovereign right to enrich uranium for nuclear energy under the 1970 Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and the nuclear energy programme is peaceful.

Why does Iran wish to ignore the UN resolution? There are several reasons and some of them deserve mention:

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

First, Israel has consistently rejected UN resolutions (28 since 1975) on Palestine issue, the most important one has been the 242 of November 1967, calling upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied territory of Palestine and negotiate with Palestinian Authority to secure its borders. Did the US criticise Israel for not complying with the resolution? It did not, rather supported the Jewish settlements in the occupied territory, contrary to the UN resolution.

If Israel can get away so easily flouting UN Security Council resolutions, why Iran cannot? All states are equal and there should not be "pick and choose" policies to which states comply and which do not. Observers believe that the Jewish lobby has disproportionately affected foreign policy of the US. They argue that concern on Iran's nuclear programme by Israel is pushing the Bush administration to war of words with Iran. Any military action would serve Israel more than the US interests.

Second, the Bush administration itself went outside the UN resolution when it attacked Iraq. The UN resolution 1441 of November 8, 2002 did not authorise the US to attack Iraq in 2003. A second resolution was required specifically to wage a war on Iraq.

The Secretary General, on the advice of the Legal Counsel of the UN, stated that the Iraqi war was illegal under the UN Charter.

Third, balance of power refers to distribution of power among states in a region. All states define their interests in terms of power and whatever states want, they need power to achieve them. This is the theory of realism, pursued by Kautilaya, Machiavelli, Cardinal Richelieu and Henry Kissinger.

Nuclear weapons came to be seen as a badge of great-power status and a potential shield against a hostile world. All the permanent members of the Security Council felt it necessary to acquire their own nuclear capabilities. If Israel has nuclear weapons (reportedly 200) in the Middle East, can it not be argued as to why other countries in the region will be denied to have the capacity to build, if necessary, nuclear weapons to correct the balance of power in the region?

Fourth, Iran and the US have been at loggerheads since 1979. It appears that many senior figures in the Bush administration have not accepted that Iran's Islamic regime is still firmly in power a quarter of a century on. Even after Iraq fiasco, they still think the US can change the regime and believe that majority of Iranians would welcome a change.

Iran, on the other hand, appears to be adamant not to back away from its nuclear programme to show to the world that it can stand up to the US threat. This stance is highly popular among ordinary Iranians. Furthermore Iran cannot forget the gross interference in 1953 in removing the reformist Prime Minister Mossadeq, restoring Shah Pahlavi's autocratic regime. Political analysts believe, if the US would not reinstate the autocratic regime, the 1979 Islamic revolution would not have occurred.

Fifth, there is a perception that Ahmadinejad's government is narrowly based but it is argued that on nuclear issue, there is no divide between the government and majority of population. Foreign Policy Centre -- a London based think-tank -- issued a timely paper indicating that Ahmadinejad may be alarming more and more but there is no clear split between the regime and the populace. Further it states, "A strategy that gambles on a popular uprising to bring down the current regime runs the risk of undermining those very forces it purports to want to help."

Finally, political observers believe that President Bush seems to be pursuing his "god-given-mission" to take away Iran's nuclear programme, while Iran's President believes that he is also divinely inspired (he told during his UN speech that some one saw a halo around him) to ensure its right to peaceful nuclear programme. It seems to be a contest of "who is exactly following God's will."

Iran's defiant stance, according to political analysts, is a response to US threats. Iran may also think that it has a role to play at the 21st century to tame the US power and the time is right for them. Political analysts say both sides need to cool their heels and Washington should not stay on the sidelines refusing direct dialogue with Iran.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.