RSS
Digg | 
Del.icio.us
To mark the UN's Holocaust Memorial day, Anne Bayefsky writes in the National Review Online that "the U.N. provides sustenance for the Iranian genocidal threat, which is directed at Israel now, and America next." We then learn from Bayefsky that the UN is "driven by expansionist greed" and serves as a "mouthpiece of Iranian nihilism." Finally, she criticizes the International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed elBaredei for having the temerity to suggest that threatening military strikes against Iran may inspire the regime to accelerate its nuclear program. Hence, writes Bayefsky, "Genocide awaits us if we wait for the U.N."
Far from being an Iranian agent, the United Nations and its sister organizations are among the only global actors actively working to curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions. (The president made this clear during his State of the Union.) The International Atomic Energy Agency is currently serving as an interlocutor between Iran and the Security Council, which last month voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Iran. And just last week, the General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a resolution that not-so-subtly chastised the Iranian president for dabbling in Holocaust denial. If anything, this symbolic vote showed that the United Nations is a mouthpiece for countries united against Iranian nihilism.
These facts hardly get in the way of Bayefsky's goal of trashing the United Nations. Yet, while Bayefsky writes polemics against dealing with Iran through diplomacy at the Security Council, she does not suggest any alternatives. Does she think a military option is prudent? Given her repeated invocations of the "G-word" I am tempted to think that she does. If so, she needs to explain herself. Otherwise, she is engaging in pointless war mongering.
