UN SECURITY COUNCIL CONDEMNS ATTACKS ON ISRAELI BUT NOT IRANIAN DIPLOMATS
US, UK and France's double standard exposes war agenda
Image Source: UN Security Council should have condemned Iran embassy attack in Syria - Iran's UN mission | Reuters
On 13 February 2012 a bomb exploded on an Israeli diplomatic car in New Delhi, India, wounding one embassy staff member, a local employee and two passers-by. In the same year, a bomb planted on an Israeli diplomatic car in Tbilisi, Georgia, failed to explode.
Without naming any country or entity responsible, in 2012 the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) condemned attacks on Israeli diplomats in both countries as criminal and unjustifiable.
On April 1, Iran said that several long-serving diplomats were killed alongside Brig Gen Mohammad Reza Zahedi and Zahedi’s deputy, Gen Haji Rahimi.
It’s normal for the UNSC to issue a pro forma press statement in such cases involving attacks on diplomats.
Israel denies responsibility for the attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria on April 1.
As it did in 2012, the UNSC could have, without naming a perpetrator, condemned the attack on Iranian diplomats in general terms.
But a press statement to that effect was blocked by the United States, United Kingdom and France.
Precedence for a diplomatic solution to prevent escalatory retaliation by Iran
A face-saving gesture of condemnation at the UNSC might have stopped Iran from a retaliatory attack. There is a historical precedence.
A Swedish diplomat Trita Parsi recounted the incident on X today ‘…there is a historical example involving Iran and an attack on an Iranian consulate in which the UNSC acted swiftly and prevented an Iranian retaliation. It was September 1998.
‘The Taliban had just taken Mazar-e Sharif in Afghanistan and attacked the Iranian consulate there, executing several Iranian diplomats. I was working for the Swedish Permanent UN Mission at the time and Sweden was not only in the UNSC, it held the presidency of the Council that month.
‘The Iranian demand on Sweden was clear: Although Iran had mobilized on the border to Afghanistan and was ready to attack, a strong condemnation by the UNSC and its presidency could provide Iran with a face-saving exit and the larger war could be avoided. Sweden ensured that the attack on the consulate - a flagrant violation of the Vienna Convention - was appropriately condemned, and Iran never retaliated against the Taliban militarily, despite the Taliban's clear aggression.‘
The Swedish diplomat concludes, ‘In both cases, an Iranian consulate had been attacked and several Iranian officials had been killed. In both cases, Iran did not want to go to war. But in one case, the UNSC condemned the aggression and Iranian retaliation was evaded. On the other, the US, UK, and France put their support for Israel above international law and prevented the UNSC from condemning the attack, and we are now in the middle of the Iranian retaliation.’
Why did the US, UK and France block a press release condemning the attack on the Iranian embassy, which violated the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations?
For years Iran, which doesn’t possess nuclear weapons, has avoided a direct confrontation with nuclear-armed Israel and the West, even while UN sanctions have crippled its economy, and its Generals have been assassinated. Tehran stands to lose as a result of its 200 ballistic missiles and drone retaliation against Israel: impacts could range from another rise of its currency against the US dollar, to a widening war in the region.
There have been reports that Iran had been looking for a face-saving concession. These appeared to be confirmed on April 11, when the Iranian mission to the UN stated: ‘Had the UN Security Council condemned the Zionist regime’s reprehensible act of aggression on our diplomatic premises in Damascus and subsequently brought to justice its perpetrators, the imperative for Iran to punish this rogue regime might have been obviated.’
Given that Israel denied responsibility, it would have been impossible for the Security Council resolution to name Israel as the perpetrator without an investigation and solid evidence. But a standard condemnation could have paid off, without naming names.
Russia had prepared a draft Security Council Press statement with a standard text used in such cases. The US, France and UK prevaricated, saying the facts surrounding the attack on the Iranian embassy were unclear. The US said that it had not confirmed the status of the building struck in Damascus. Because the UNSC issues press statements by consensus, a basic condemnation was denied.
The UNSC’ inability to treat Iran’s embassy attacks as it does others, demonstrates a double-standard undermining the basic principles of diplomatic relations. It plays into Israel’s wish to escalate the conflict with Iran, drawing its allies the UK and US further into an unwinnable war.