Whose Side Is He On?

It appears that Mohammed El-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has sidelined one of his his nuclear inspectors at the reqwuest of Iran. Apparently, he found things the regime in Tehran didn't want him to find, and so Tehran asked El-Baradei to remove him from the IAEA inspection team responsible for inspecting Iran's nuclear activities and forbid him access to documents pertaining to said activities. El-Baradei complied.

It's possible that I'm overreacting, but it seems to me that this kills any possiblity for an acceptable solution being reached through current diplomatic efforts. If Tehran can get El-Baradei to remove inspectors who get too close to discovering something Tehran doesn't want them to find, then either the Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, or the United States and selected allies will have to act outside the U.N. to prevent this happening, thus increasing the likelihood of a military altercation between the United States and Iran. This is because, absent clear evidence that Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power*, Russia and China have no incentive to act to bring the Iranian crisis to a resolution, and the U.N. cannot take concrete action** without assent from Russia and China, who have automatic vetoes on the Security Council.


*It's possible that Russia and China have decided that Iran having nuclear weapons is in their best interest as it creates more problems for the U.S. and more opportunities for them to increase their own influence. Heck, Russia may figure that a war between the United States and Iran helps them because it will drive up the price of oil, meaning more oil for Russia. China could also take advantage of the situation may invading Taiwan and increasing its influence in East and Southeast Asia.

**There's been a fair amount of talk about how the U.N. Security Council is ready to take concrete action against Iran should it refuse the package of incentives offered by Europe in exchange for abandoning its uranium enrichment program. The problem is that there is no talk of what such action would be. Would it be a strongly worded resolution condemning Iran and calling on them to give up their enrichment program? A strongly worded resolution condemning Iran and calling on them to give up their program with the threat of "grave consequences" should they fail to comply? Would it involve economic sanctions? Surgical air strikes? A full-scale invasion? There are so many possibilities that the simple threat of "concrete action" in the Security Council is an empty one unless "concrete action" is clearly defined and demonstrably harsh.