“Since wars begin in the minds of men, is on the minds of the human struggle for peace must be constructed” (UNESCO Charter)

Indeed this statement to emphasize the importance of diplomacy through dialogue in international peacemaking. Therefore, it feels weird when thirty-five Board of Governors of the IAEA (International Association of Energy Atomyc) handed the Iranian nuclear issue to UN Security Council, a week later the United States (U.S.) began to plan a military attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Whereas the IAEA agreed to delay the UN Security Council sanctions for a month to give diplomacy a chance against Russia.This U.S. action seemed to assert that military sanctions will be applied in Iran even though there are many other alternative sanctions are more humane.

Indicators that the U.S. does have plans to conduct a military option against Iran at least “started to look ‘when the U.S. helped Israel bombs supply in the crisis of the recent Lebanon between Israel and Hizbollah is. The crisis is particularly sensitive because Lebanon is a strong partnership with Syria and Iran are supplying arms Hizbollah indicated. Syria began to prepare the military if Israel actually invaded Lebanon and the U.S. is anticipated by the visit of Condoleeza Rice (U.S. Secretary of State) against the government of Lebanon that Israel only attacks aimed at Hizbollah guerrillas (the U.S. version of the terrorists). Iran has so far played his part well enough and not buying into the U.S. and Israeli provocations. For the interference of Iran (likely opposition to the U.S. and Israel) in this conflict it will provide reasons for the U.S. to attack Iran.

In the opinion of the writer, at least two reasons why the U.S. eager to get started early on a military option against Iran, namely:

First, the U.S. feels that diplomacy offered by Russia to Iran will not succeed. So far, Iran ‘judged’ not communicative (hard head) against the U.S. and the EU regarding the transparency of its nuclear program. Iran’s refusal to enrich uranium in Russia further strengthens the U.S. argument that Iran is really developing nuclear technology for military purposes.

Second, if Iran agreed with the proposal of Moscow, still, it is not beneficial to the U.S..Iran’s uranium enrichment in Russia would complicate the U.S. to control Iran’s nuclear program. In this context, confidence in the U.S. against Russia is weak. In the Iraq war – Iran, Russia is an ally of Iran. This is in contrast with the U.S. that helped Iraq. This indication appears when a U.S. judge Russia and China tend to slow in determining the attitude towards Iran’s nuclear program.

Based on the two reasons mentioned above, regardless of the outcome of diplomacy between Russia and Iran, the U.S. will continue to demand for the removal of Iran’s nuclear program. Washington’s tough stance is possible to strengthen the position of Israel as the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons. In the long run, this will strengthen the U.S. hegemony in the region.

United Nations in addressing the red report card the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan should be a mirror for Iran in the face of the arrogance of the U.S. after 11 September 2001. Russia and France, although rejected, but does not use its veto to stop the invasion. While China chose abstention. This means that even those countries with a U.S. bersebrangan but they express it with restraint. Operational costs as the biggest contributor to the UN, the U.S. does not have any sanctions. Especially in the case of Iran, the U.S. had been disappointed that the UN failed to free fifty-three Americans held hostage by Iranian militants in 1980. Although at that time, the new government in Iran in charge of the issue had been formed.

U.S. and UN intimacy is not without its bumps. Since the middle of the cold war, U.S. dominance in the United Nations began to receive resistance from third world countries.One of the most important case is the termination of the U.S. contribution to UNESCO’s budget in 1974. This condition is triggered by a UNESCO resolution requiring the expenditure of Israel from the European regional group. The U.S. action was condemned by the international community, and many UN programs critical of the U.S..Since then, the UN is used by third world countries to mobilize global anti-Americanism as a whole even though the U.S. is still dominant.

Verdict IAEA that Iran violated the NPT (Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty) unfortunate.Since its initial enactment, the NPT is actually ambivalent. For countries that have nuclear weapons do not destroy its nuclear weapons. This is actually triggering the development of the military nature of the world’s countries on a nuclear weapons capacity (balance of power). If the NPT is intended for genuine peace, all countries should have nuclear weapons should be destroyed. In addition, the IAEA and the UN tends to be inconsistent. Israel and India who openly have nuclear weapons tend to be ‘immune’ to the NPT. The point is there is not a firm stand against countries that do not ratify the NPT. This is possible because the U.S. determination to develop relations prioritizes cooperation with the major power in the world. Therefore it is understandable if India tends to secure its position by a majority vote in favor of Iran’s nuclear case. This inconsistency suggests that the IAEA and the UN began to move away from the ideal function. In this case, the IAEA eventually just became the right hand the U.S. to disarm Iran, then the UN Security Council to resolve.

The strong U.S. influence and the absence of the balancer in both international organizations indicate that the U.S. invasion of Iran is very likely happen. Indeed, we also must not deny that there is a possibility the attack plan was to bully the U.S. psywar Iran to be more softened in diplomacy with the United States and the European Union.The assumption is that the U.S. is still focused in the security and stability in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the case of Iraq for at least a reflection of empirical Iran that without a UN mandate and international support even though the U.S. remains an invasion of weapons of mass destruction as a reason not found. Such as the functionalist argument: the war is a product of the international system is organized roughly. The U.S. tendency to ‘love’ to the military option in resolving international conflicts has put Iran in a disadvantageous position.