IAEA Or UNSC For Iran?
The pesky Russians and Chinese are continuing to obstruct the U.S. plan for dealing with the freedom hatin' Iranians.
U.S. and European diplomats have failed during two weeks of negotiations to overcome Chinese and Russian objections to a Security Council statement demanding that Iran stop its nuclear-enrichment activities and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency...
U.S. and European officials say they will try to assuage Russian and Chinese fears that the adoption of the statement will inevitably lead to harsh punitive measures against Iran. "We're not hellbent on going to war; we're not hellbent on imposing sanctions," said a senior State Department official familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks are supposed to be confidential...
Russian diplomats say they are concerned that a U.S.-backed European draft, which sets a two-week deadline for Tehran to stop enrichment activities and agree to more intrusive U.N. inspections, provides too little time to test Iran's cooperation. Russia's U.N. ambassador, Andrei Denisov, mockingly told the Associated Press on Friday: "Let's just imagine that we adopt it and today we issued that statement -- then what happens after two weeks? In such a pace, we'll start bombing in June."
I'm not so sure that Mr. Denisov was speaking sardonically when he said that. He is doubtlessly privy to U.N. watercooler speculation about what likely outrages may come from the U.S. side following any (even imagined) violation of international restrictions upon Iran's actions in the nuclear area.
The standoff hinges on whether the Iran crisis should be handled by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency or the Security Council, which can impose sanctions or use force. Russia and China have insisted that the IAEA take the lead, while the United States, France and Britain say that Iran will stop its activities only if faced with the threat of sanctions.
If, as the U.S. is portraying, Iran is so irrational that they are likely to use nuclear weapons against the West, why do we think that they are rational enough to be deterred by the threat of sanctions?
Logic must never have been part of the curricula at any of the universities that our policymakers cheated their way through.
U.S. and European diplomats have failed during two weeks of negotiations to overcome Chinese and Russian objections to a Security Council statement demanding that Iran stop its nuclear-enrichment activities and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency...
U.S. and European officials say they will try to assuage Russian and Chinese fears that the adoption of the statement will inevitably lead to harsh punitive measures against Iran. "We're not hellbent on going to war; we're not hellbent on imposing sanctions," said a senior State Department official familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks are supposed to be confidential...
Russian diplomats say they are concerned that a U.S.-backed European draft, which sets a two-week deadline for Tehran to stop enrichment activities and agree to more intrusive U.N. inspections, provides too little time to test Iran's cooperation. Russia's U.N. ambassador, Andrei Denisov, mockingly told the Associated Press on Friday: "Let's just imagine that we adopt it and today we issued that statement -- then what happens after two weeks? In such a pace, we'll start bombing in June."
I'm not so sure that Mr. Denisov was speaking sardonically when he said that. He is doubtlessly privy to U.N. watercooler speculation about what likely outrages may come from the U.S. side following any (even imagined) violation of international restrictions upon Iran's actions in the nuclear area.
The standoff hinges on whether the Iran crisis should be handled by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency or the Security Council, which can impose sanctions or use force. Russia and China have insisted that the IAEA take the lead, while the United States, France and Britain say that Iran will stop its activities only if faced with the threat of sanctions.
If, as the U.S. is portraying, Iran is so irrational that they are likely to use nuclear weapons against the West, why do we think that they are rational enough to be deterred by the threat of sanctions?
Logic must never have been part of the curricula at any of the universities that our policymakers cheated their way through.
posted by Effwit at 11:43 AM
6 Comments:
I really think this bickering over 2 weeks or 4 weeks or 6 weeks here and there is a brazen telltale sign of what's going on.
I'm guessing there's a hardcore date set for action and that the Russians and Chinese know of it in the most definitive of ways and are fucking with the U.S. by playing off of the duplicity of stated intentions of constructivism.
2 weeks here or there means we are on an exceedingly tight schedule on our march to a foregone conclusion.
I wonder what the Chinese and Russians are asking for behind the scenes to render complete complicity and stop behaving like mischievous 2nd graders with these their impish shots over our bow.
M1:
I think that at some point the U.S. will decide that the Russians and Chinese are a lost cause, and decide to act against Iran unilaterally.
The Security Council will have suddenly become irrelevant again.
You are undoubtedly right that the two potential vetoing countries know our planned timetable. The price of their complicity--unknown--but surely extortively high.
I found a blog, endorsed by Michael Ledeen and other kooks, devoted to reclaiming Persia for the exiled and bored Iranians in the U.S.
They expouse typically marginal opinions and have a blogroll that would gag a maggot.
Pro Iran War Blog
According to their site meter, they have lots of fans.
Oh I believe ya - they know the US will go it alone.
Wow, that site is brilliant. I remember the first time I found that naziesque Little Green Footballs site...I was perversely ecstatic for days.
I'm wondering if the regime-change-per-US-bombs Iranian ex-pats won't become raging 5th columnists in America when they see what perfect devastation we bring upon their lovely homeland.
Regime change in Iran - sure...but no more brain surgery by this Admin's band of demented gas station attendants. I can't take it anymore and the bombs aren't even falling in my wonderful backyards or on my children.
M1:
The pampered U.S. Iranians may stir up the shit a little over here, but if the Iraqi-Americans have not gone back to their savage ways in our country, the Iranians are probably even less so inclined.
Of course, the richest and most pampered people (read the Americans) sometimes behave below socially appropriate standards. Sometimes waaay below.
When I am confronted with a new (to me) political blog that whose outlook I can't quickly determine, I look at the blogroll. If I find Little Green Footballs, I know that I am viewing the product of a kook. Or a group of kooks.
They are often funny, but life is short, and I usually have little tolerance for their dumbshittery.
No, you're of course right in what you say about the climatized Persian Ex-pats.
I should have clarified that in the mind of the scenario-boyz and kontingenzy-kidz, such a 5th column rage & reaction has been envisioned. But that r & r hasn't been envisioned as proprietary to them alone. They be thinkin' that all uz Admin-contrarians are gonna freak out and pick up a picket sign.
Or such are my speculations and as such I should caveat moi meatballian certitudes.
This Iran biz in present contexts freezes me meatballs like no other chill before. It really feels like Oh brother, here we go.
M1:
scenario-boyz and kontingenzy-kidz.
Dag nabbit, you're good.
r&r in the U.S.? From AM CITS?
Won't happen. The students are too chickenshit here these days. They ain't French students.
The only thing that would bring these weakdicks out to protest would be if their favorite Starbucks was closing.
Post a Comment
<< Home