I think singapore is too small and Iran is just being very polite. Really I do.

I thought that I should share an anecdote with you during the period when US is planning to invade Iraq. While in our after dinner coffee talks, a discussion among a group of us including two international lawyers centered around the legality of the Iraq invasion. One possibility other than adhering to the resolution 1441 is to invoke a particular statement in UN resolution 1373. In fact, a paper on international law was written on 1373. The resolution centres on the definition of terrorism and the implementation on how a state should tackle terrorism. This resolution was passed without objection by all the 5 security council members.

Let me quote the important bits from the UN Resolution 1373:

3. Calls upon all States to:

(a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;

(b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;

(g) Ensure, in conformity with international law, that refugee status is not abused by the perpetrators, organizers or facilitators of terrorist acts, and that claims of political motivation are not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists;

4. Notes with concern the close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and in this regard emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security;

8. Expresses its determination to take all necessary steps in order to ensure the full implementation of this resolution, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter;

One line of argument which the lawyers wanted to invoke is the connection between Saddam and Al-Queda, which of course on hindsight is established to be bogus. However, in 1373, there is a clause in (8) that you can take "all necessary steps in order to ensure the full implementation of this resolution". Hence there is a fear that the US might invoke 1441 and 1373 together.

In the end, the US relied on 1441 to get by. However, UN resolution 1373 do possess some interesting clauses which are still of debate in international law.

Isn't being friends with Iran a good way to be friends with the Middle East, regardless of what happens to Iran later? Just a thought.

(I thought the Americans were so sure that they decided to ask for a Resolution II, undeniably slapped by the French, when all they needed to do was to insist everyone agreed 10 years ago and just ask them go to war?)

puffin, brilliant strategic summary. I agree completely. :)

BL, thanks for bringing up UNSC resolution 1373. IMHO the linkage between Saddam and al Qaida was always a tenuous one even though the logic of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' seems superficially plausible. Saddam was interested, first and foremost, in maintaining his own power and knows that any proof of him supporting al Qaida in the wake of Sep 11 and Afghanistan would give the Bush Administration the perfect excuse to invade. The fact that hapless Colin Powell had to plug the WMD option rather than terrorism was probably a tacit pre-invasion admission of that the Saddam-OBL link was non-existence and so 1373 not really so relevant.

ben, methinks being too friendly with Iran is a great way to antagonize the Saudis and the Egyptians since they are longstanding rivals for regional hegemony. In general, most of the Middle Eastern states are wary of Iran because it is 1) Persian rather than Arab 2) Shia rather than Sunni and 3) the Iranian system is actually more democratic than most of the others in the Middle East.

ben thinks that iran is very popular nowadays and a lot of other people want to follow them. we think iran is naughty, but they are heroes in the middle east for wanting to have nuclear technology. they are more democratic - true - having got in reformists in their latest history to power, but thanks to the US, we have a fundamentalist regime in power. every would-be leader in other middle eastern state aspire to do the same - rise the wave of religious led democracy vote using anti-US rhetoric

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/5363098.stm

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2006/issue3/jv10no3a10.html

Granted the Persian/Shia thing is not in their favour: being anti-US is very popular in the middle east. I think many people there hold the sincere belief that Bush is a war criminal, that US is bad, and that Iran is good.

But I won't know.

"If and when Tehran gets sufficient fissile material, the balance of power in the Gulf will be fundamentally changed."

Why ? Because the Iranians are going to nuke the Sunnis and furnish the excuse for the use of U.S./ NATO nukes on themselves ?

Israel is widely accepted as a de facto nuclear power in the Middle East. Has that fundamentally changed the geo-politics of the Middle East by making the Arabs and Iranians greatly more willing to accomodate what the Isrealis perceive to be their interests ?

Nukes falling into the hands of terrorists that might be used against SG ? With the collapse of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons were guarded by despondent, hungry and unpaid servicemen. We weren't afraid. We ( govt and opinion-makers ) congratulated the U.S. on its role in helping to bring about the collapse rather than evolution of the Soviet Union.

How do we deny a pro-US foreign policy when our actions/ reactions consistently point to it and we make/ endorse simplistic statements that support the U.S agenda ?

It is an error to suggest that the US is limited by international law in regard to attacking Iran. UNSC 678 authorizes the invasion of Iraq, and if Iran can be proven to be opposing this UN authorized invasion, 678 also authorizes military action against Iran.

Only the restraint shown by the President of the United States limits US military options against Iran, since Iran has been proven to be intervening in Iraq, and is doing so without any UN mandate.

This interpretation of law would be controverial, and the UNSC would hear and then authoratatively decide the law, just as it did when Iraq was invaded in 2003. As it was in 2003, it would likely decide "to be seized of the matter", and would permit US military actions under UNSC 678 to proceed.