US will not refer Iran to Security Council for hiding weapons: official

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1520&ncid=1520&e=2&u=/afp/20040304/pl_afp/us_iran_nuclear_040304164103

LISBON (AFP) - Washington will not press the UN nuclear watchdog to refer Iran to the Security Council when it meets next week, a move that would open the door to sanctions, even though the country is still hiding a nuclear weapons program, a top US official said.


But US Undersecretary of State John Bolton, a leading arms control official, told a news conference that Washington and its European allies would keep up pressure on Tehran to come clean on its uranium enrichment program in other ways.


"We are absolutely determined not to reduce the pressure on Iran," he said.


"We think the pressure they have been under has been critical to their revealing the pieces about their nuclear program that they have already revealed."

more

[salin]

1. Anybody have a take on this? Bolton has been one of those

cited as trying to subvert diplomatic solutions w/Iran, NKorea and Syria, often appearing to make moves that are provocative - as if he is trying to engineer a crisis to which the US "has to respond". On the surface this looks like a retreat. Someone reining in the Neocons? Are they finally responding to common sense?

[pinto]

3. I think it says something about Bolton and hence our relationship w/

the UN Security Council. We have committed ourselves to a largely "go it alone" international policy. Bolton et al seem to prefer the control that gives the administration to define events in the administration's terms, not the international community's terms. Dangerous policy, imo, witness Iraq.

[salin]

4. that makes sense... very consistent

with my understanding of how he works (quietly trying to subvert diplomatic efforts...)

[The Stranger]

2. PNAC and the Neonazicons are laying low until after the election.