Another Delay On Iran
It seems that today is a day full of delays. Today is graduation day on ASU's campus with over 6000 graduates completing their college careers tonight. And it is not fun trying to get around campus today because of the graduation. But that is all right. They earned it (at least I hope they earned it). But the delay I speak of in this post is over Iran. The BBC has the story, and the Hat-Tip goes to Captain Ed Morrissey.
The US Secretary of State has said that efforts to pursue a tough UN Security Council resolution on Iran's nuclear programme will be delayed.
Condoleezza Rice said European countries would resume diplomatic efforts to persuade Tehran to change its position.
The US suspects Iran of trying to secretly develop a nuclear weapon, something which Iran denies.
Tehran has so far ignored calls from the UN to suspend uranium enrichment.
It points out that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows it to carry out such activities.
Western efforts to press ahead with a tough UN Security Council resolution appear to have hit resistance from two of the Council's veto holding permanent members, China and Russia.
Both are known to be unenthusiastic about the idea of a resolution under Chapter Seven of the UN charter, which could eventually lead to sanctions.
They have been urging more diplomacy to resolve the standoff.
Foreign ministers from the Council's five permanent members and Germany met in New York this week.
Since then, there have been reports that three European countries who have negotiated with Iran in the past - the so-called EU3 - could launch a new effort to offer carrots as well as sticks to Iran to curtail its controversial nuclear programme.
Let me stop everyone right here and ask a simple question. The EU-3 agreed that their previous talks with Iran went nowhere. Iran was not being transparent, and was actually more hostile to the EU-3 when the question of enrichment came up. Those talks failed, which started everyone on this useless path through the United Nations. We knew that this road would end very quickly, and it has with the reluctance of two of Iran's "business partners" refusing to even contemplate sanctions. While I understand that Russia and China do not want to move in favor of sanctions (DUH! Of course they do not want to do that; I am sure their "goods" fall within the constraints of those sanctions), they have to understand that Iran with nuclear weapons will only serve to destabilize the region.
As it stands, and has been stated in this document released as a part of the full dump done from the DNI's office of Iraqi documents. In that document, the Iraqis speaking admit that Iran's problem at the time was too many of the Gulf states were turning away from them, and embracing America as a friend. This was bad for Iraq, but it was worse for Iran. Iran, since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, was able to sort of keep the other states in line through fear. When America made its invasion in 1991 of Iraq, the other Gulf states took notice of that, and as we prepared for the second invasion in 2003, those same states started to warm up to America. They had been since the mid-1990s, but after the attacks on 9/11, a lot of them wanted to make sure they were on the right side of the fight. When they walked away from Iran, they sent a message. Now, Iran wants to send their own, and they are willing to do it under the auspice of nuclear blackmail.
Two options
Condoleezza Rice said they would still continue to seek a Security Council resolution but explained what their discussions had achieved.
"We agreed...we would wait for a couple of weeks, while the Europeans design an offer to the Iranians that would make clear that they have a choice that would allow them to have a civil nuclear programme if that is indeed what they want," she said.
Speaking on American television, Ms Rice said the EU3 wanted to show Iran that it had two options.
It could either defy the international community and face isolation and UN Security Council action.
Or it could accept a path with a civilian nuclear programme that was acceptable to the international community.
Last summer, the EU3 offered Iran a package of economic, political and technological incentives aimed at persuading it to give up sensitive uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.
Tehran rejected those proposals and has since ignored the Security Council's calls for it to resume a suspension of uranium enrichment activities.
Whereas some might believe that Iran is working towards peaceful uses for nuclear energy, the rhetoric from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (including the eighteen page diatribe sent by him to President Bush) shows precisely the opposite. Intelligence analysts, and senior administration officials blow it off as bluster. Some people, like Stephen Adams (interviewed on Michael Medved's show yesterday; sorry, no link available) who stated it was not bluster. It was a warning. He likens it to the same warning sent by Osama bin Laden to the Clinton administration received, listing their grievances against the United States. The warning that Mr. Adams states is within the letter is simple:
"Surrender in your war, give up on Israel, and live in relative peace."
I am sorry, President Ahmadinejad, America rolls over for no one. The war will continue until our enemy is destroyed, and Iran is already one of those enemies. They have been since Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah to the radicals who seized power in 1979. Sending a letter to the president where you rant and rave for eighteen pages is no way to help your cause.
This delay is not a good move. But in the end, when push comes to shove and we must act, I do hope the Left remembers the painful process of diplomacy we have gone through to give Iran as many chances as possible to walk away from the path they are on. The path that he is prepared to take his country down is liable to be one of destruction rather than peace.
The Bunny ;)
It seems that today is a day full of delays. Today is graduation day on ASU's campus with over 6000 graduates completing their college careers tonight. And it is not fun trying to get around campus today because of the graduation. But that is all right. They earned it (at least I hope they earned it). But the delay I speak of in this post is over Iran. The BBC has the story, and the Hat-Tip goes to Captain Ed Morrissey.
The US Secretary of State has said that efforts to pursue a tough UN Security Council resolution on Iran's nuclear programme will be delayed.
Condoleezza Rice said European countries would resume diplomatic efforts to persuade Tehran to change its position.
The US suspects Iran of trying to secretly develop a nuclear weapon, something which Iran denies.
Tehran has so far ignored calls from the UN to suspend uranium enrichment.
It points out that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows it to carry out such activities.
Western efforts to press ahead with a tough UN Security Council resolution appear to have hit resistance from two of the Council's veto holding permanent members, China and Russia.
Both are known to be unenthusiastic about the idea of a resolution under Chapter Seven of the UN charter, which could eventually lead to sanctions.
They have been urging more diplomacy to resolve the standoff.
Foreign ministers from the Council's five permanent members and Germany met in New York this week.
Since then, there have been reports that three European countries who have negotiated with Iran in the past - the so-called EU3 - could launch a new effort to offer carrots as well as sticks to Iran to curtail its controversial nuclear programme.
Let me stop everyone right here and ask a simple question. The EU-3 agreed that their previous talks with Iran went nowhere. Iran was not being transparent, and was actually more hostile to the EU-3 when the question of enrichment came up. Those talks failed, which started everyone on this useless path through the United Nations. We knew that this road would end very quickly, and it has with the reluctance of two of Iran's "business partners" refusing to even contemplate sanctions. While I understand that Russia and China do not want to move in favor of sanctions (DUH! Of course they do not want to do that; I am sure their "goods" fall within the constraints of those sanctions), they have to understand that Iran with nuclear weapons will only serve to destabilize the region.
As it stands, and has been stated in this document released as a part of the full dump done from the DNI's office of Iraqi documents. In that document, the Iraqis speaking admit that Iran's problem at the time was too many of the Gulf states were turning away from them, and embracing America as a friend. This was bad for Iraq, but it was worse for Iran. Iran, since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, was able to sort of keep the other states in line through fear. When America made its invasion in 1991 of Iraq, the other Gulf states took notice of that, and as we prepared for the second invasion in 2003, those same states started to warm up to America. They had been since the mid-1990s, but after the attacks on 9/11, a lot of them wanted to make sure they were on the right side of the fight. When they walked away from Iran, they sent a message. Now, Iran wants to send their own, and they are willing to do it under the auspice of nuclear blackmail.
Two options
Condoleezza Rice said they would still continue to seek a Security Council resolution but explained what their discussions had achieved.
"We agreed...we would wait for a couple of weeks, while the Europeans design an offer to the Iranians that would make clear that they have a choice that would allow them to have a civil nuclear programme if that is indeed what they want," she said.
Speaking on American television, Ms Rice said the EU3 wanted to show Iran that it had two options.
It could either defy the international community and face isolation and UN Security Council action.
Or it could accept a path with a civilian nuclear programme that was acceptable to the international community.
Last summer, the EU3 offered Iran a package of economic, political and technological incentives aimed at persuading it to give up sensitive uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.
Tehran rejected those proposals and has since ignored the Security Council's calls for it to resume a suspension of uranium enrichment activities.
Whereas some might believe that Iran is working towards peaceful uses for nuclear energy, the rhetoric from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (including the eighteen page diatribe sent by him to President Bush) shows precisely the opposite. Intelligence analysts, and senior administration officials blow it off as bluster. Some people, like Stephen Adams (interviewed on Michael Medved's show yesterday; sorry, no link available) who stated it was not bluster. It was a warning. He likens it to the same warning sent by Osama bin Laden to the Clinton administration received, listing their grievances against the United States. The warning that Mr. Adams states is within the letter is simple:
"Surrender in your war, give up on Israel, and live in relative peace."
I am sorry, President Ahmadinejad, America rolls over for no one. The war will continue until our enemy is destroyed, and Iran is already one of those enemies. They have been since Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah to the radicals who seized power in 1979. Sending a letter to the president where you rant and rave for eighteen pages is no way to help your cause.
This delay is not a good move. But in the end, when push comes to shove and we must act, I do hope the Left remembers the painful process of diplomacy we have gone through to give Iran as many chances as possible to walk away from the path they are on. The path that he is prepared to take his country down is liable to be one of destruction rather than peace.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home