Trump’s Call to Putin, Article IV of the NPT and War Crimes
President Trump’s recent attempt to reassure the American public how the war against Iran was going relied on the President’s assertion that the US is winning the war. Relying on the lame claim, the President said “I think the war is very complete, pretty much,” as well as telling Axios that “Any time I want it to end, it will end.”
Speaking from his Doral Florida golf club, the President added that “If they do anything bad, that would be the end of Iran and you’d never hear the name again,” leaving open speculation that the US was prepared to further dramatically escalate its military response.
In close coordination with Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu, early assertions that Iran was in a weakened state have not materialized. Almost two weeks into the conflict, with mid term elections looming, the President’s vulnerable political state amidst sinking approval polls cannot avoid the precarious reality that the war had not occurred as anticipated.
In response to the frustration, the US has undertaken an indiscriminate carpet bombing campaign throughout Tehran, its capital city with a population of ten million. Those bombings include direct attacks on the civilian population, schools, hospitals, residential buildings and other noncombatant infrastructure. All would be considered war crime violations under the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Codes.
As a result of the targeted assassination of the Ayatollah, the Trump-Netanyahu team expected Iran to succumb to a lack of leadership yet those early days passed without any sign of collapse by Iran and were stunned by Iran’s vociferous response.
The war has not proven to be the speedy, crowning success that Trump had been led to believe as he struggles to find the exit.
Almost immediately as bombs began to drop on February 28, the Shajareh Tayyiba elementary school was struck killing 165 young girls (ages 6-10 years) and a dozen teachers. It was reported that the majority of the students were daughters of Iran military officers. Trump foolishly asserted that Iran had killed its own students with no explanation of how Iran acquired the necessary missile or how a second tap had occurred on the rescuers.
When satellite imagery confirmed that a US Tomahawk missile was at fault, it was asserted by President Trump that the Tomahawk missile had been in Iran’s possession, although it is known that only four countries have purchased Tomahawk’s (the UK, the US, Australia and Japan) and that Iran has no Tomahawk missiles.
It was further reported that an incendiary device had exploded at the scene thereby creating an inferno amidst the students. The attack on Sharjareh, as well as carpet bombing, would clearly qualify as war crimes eligible for legal action.
As certain media began to report that the US had lost the war, it came as no surprise that Trump reached out to Russian President Vladimir Putin presumably for counsel on deescalation although the exact nature of their one hour conversation remains unspecified.
Two days after the Putin-Trump phone call, Putin was meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev where both spoke in favor of an end to the hostilities. The Russian leader then held a phone conversation with Emirati President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan where both expressed concern that the situation in the Gulf was “deteriorating rapidly.”
The Russian leader “emphasized the need to stop the conflict from escalating further and resolve it through talks.” Putin thanked Aliyev for assistance evacuating Russian citizens from Iran and thanked the UAE for its assistance to Russian citizens.
Almost immediately — because there is a history there — Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi ruled out further negotiations citing that Iran had had a “very bitter experience of talking with the Americans.” At least twice, the US had “used” negotiations as a façade to stall peace efforts while the US-Israel instigated new attacks.
It is may be implausible to believe that Trump’s negotiating “dream team” included his son-in-law Jared Kushner and a NYC crony Steve Witkoff, both of whom are Zionists with real estate backgrounds and active relationships with Israel. Neither had any experience in diplomacy or any familiarity with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
Even before the conflict became a full fledged war, when it became apparent that Trump was willing to ‘negotiate’ with the Iranians, the President was frequently flipping his objective – were negotiations to be focused on Iran’s use of nuclear energy or its enrichment of uranium or was it the ballistic missile threat or perhaps it was merely ‘regime change’ as if the US had the right to decide any other nation’s ‘regime’.
Scrutinizing the negotiating process reveals that when US and Iran representatives met in an attempt to find common ground and resolve their differences, the ‘negotiations’ quickly deteriorated into little more than a stalling process creating political theatre to enhance President Trump’s image of his alleged quest for peace.
The negotiations could have been productive if Trump had appointed professional diplomats with some experience dealing with high level war-and-peace questions or politically sensitive issues as well as an open-minded approach truly seeking peace would have been helpful.
At the time, “A deal was at our reach, and we left Geneva happily with the understanding that we can reach a deal next time we meet,” Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated in anticipation that Iran would “focus on discussions that accept enrichment inside Iran while building trust that enrichment is and will stay for peaceful purposes.”
The question arose, however, what were the negotiators to negotiate if the President had not been able to settle on one single basis for war with Iran, if there was no real understanding of the nature of their negotiation. In the final analysis, it makes little difference since there was no one real objective identified that would forestall the attacks.
The attacks were always on the agenda; the negotiations were meant to impress gullible Americans that there was a serious attempt to forestall an attack and that the US did its best but it was allegedly the fault of those damned Iranians who would not cooperate.
After their first “negotiation” session, Witkoff reported with an incredulous tone that Iran had declared it had an “inalienable right” to enrich all its nuclear fuel. That’s how they opened up,” Witkoff complained. “We, of course, responded that the president feels we have the inalienable right to stop you, dead in your tracks.” Witkoff continued “… which told us at that very moment that they had no notion of doing anything other than retaining enrichment for the purpose of weaponizing.”
Clearly, Witkoff was offended by Iranian use of the “inalienable right” phrase. As an uninformed mediator, Witkoff had not understood that the Iranians were absolutely correct in their assertion. The Iranians did have an “inalienable right” as spelled out in Article IV of the NPT.
However, the Witkoff-Kushner team maintained an antagonistic view with no clue about the NPT or that Article IV existed but that the Iranians were totally correct and that Article IV was very clear and specific to the point.
After the fact, Omani foreign minister Badr Alblusaidi who participated in the negotiations as a mediator, reiterated on Face the Nation that “Iran agreed it will “never, ever” have nuclear material to create a bomb. Iran agreed to full and comprehensive verification by the IAEA”.
Hours before President Trump announced his decision to bomb Iran, Alblusaidi went public to inform the American people that “a peace deal is within our reach.” By that time, Trump was intent on war.
Instead, if Trump’s hand picked negotiators had been familiar with Article IV’s reference to an inalienable right as identified in the NPT, if Witkoff and Kushner had a better understanding of their role as negotiators, had a better understanding of what the Iranians were trying to convey about the NPT’s requirements and its allowance for reprocessing of uranium for peaceful purposes, this disastrous deadly conflict might have been avoided.
Article IV of the NPT states: “Nothing in this treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the parties to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination” and further that “all Parties have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”
Article IV also provides for the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to NPT Parties for peaceful purposes in the development of civilian nuclear energy programs, subject to IAEA safeguards to demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.
Specifically Article IV of the NPT acknowledges the right of all Parties to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as well as permits the enrichment of uranium for peaceful purposes.
In 1968, both Iran and Israel were parties to the NPT as Iran has always been agreeable to IAEA inspections.
Initially agreeing to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in theory in 1968, the nation of Israel never signed or ratified the NPT as adopted; Israel remains the only nation in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons and its refusal to adhere to the IAEA inspections.
Israel has denied the existence of the Dimona Nuclear plant for decades, is the only UN member not a party to the NPT as it is also not a party to the Biological Weapons Convention or the Chemical Weapons Convention and has never participated in the Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone.
American journalist Tucker Carlson: “If the US refuses to admit any responsibility for the bombing of an Iranian elementary school, the US is not worth fighting for,” and an investigation should determine if the school bombing was a “tragic mistake.”
Ironically, within days of the elementary school attack, US First Lady Melania Trump chaired a UN Security Meeting entitled “Children in Conflict.”
No comments:
Post a Comment