So, Russia and China blocked the UN statement Bush wanted on Iran

[bigtree]

United Nations
21 March 2006

The five permanent United Nations Security Council members and Germany have failed to agree on a strategy for pressuring Iran to halt its controversial nuclear program. Approval of a hoped-for common position statement has been delayed to allow more time for diplomacy.

Russia and China at least temporary blocked a U.N. Security Council statement that would urge Iran to stop enriching uranium for possible use in nuclear weapons. The United States, along European allies Britain, France and Germany, had hoped the statement would be adopted Tuesday.

But those hopes were dashed when a Monday meeting of senior diplomats of the six nations outside U.N. headquarters failed to settle on common language. One diplomat, who requested anonymity, called the negotiations "difficult."

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns emerged from the talks expressing optimism that agreement would eventually be reached. But, in an apparent reference to the Chinese and Russian objections, he suggested that the four-and-a-half hour session had achieved little.

full report: http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-03-21-voa13.cfm

[cantstandbush]

1. Will the press ask him about this? n/t

[bigtree]

4. should be enough there for a question or two

plus the British move to get the US involved in talks with Iran is interesting and relevant. I hope they do have the intelligence to ask.

[BR_Parkway]

2. Well, thank Gawd Shrub sent that incredible diplomat Bolton up there

in spite of no one in the Senate giving their blessing. He'll be able to get everyone over to our side :sarcasm:

[bigtree]

3. I expect Bush will try to link al-Qaeda with Iran. *

Shouldn't fly if he does. Saw this report in the Aussie press today:


US turns attention to al-Qaeda in Iran

By Josh Meyer in Washington
March 22, 2006

Some officials, citing highly classified electronic eavesdropping, believe Iran is hosting much of al-Qaeda's remaining brains trust and allowing the senior operatives freedom to communicate and help plan the terrorist network's operations.

They suggest the President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may be forging an alliance with al-Qaeda operatives as a way to expand Iran's influence or, at least, that he is looking the other way as al-Qaeda leaders in Iran collaborate with their counterparts elsewhere.

"Iran is becoming more and more radicalised and more willing to turn a blind eye to the al-Qaeda presence there," one US counterterrorism official said.

The accusations by US officials about Iranian nuclear ambitions and ties to al-Qaeda echo charges made about Iraq before the US invasion three years ago.

Those claims have been largely discredited. And in the case of Iran, some intelligence officials and analysts are unconvinced. If anything, they suggest, escalating tensions between Shiites and Sunni Arabs in Iraq would logically cause Iran's Shiite government to crack down on al-Qaeda, whose Sunni leadership has denounced Shiites as infidels.

http://smh.com.au/news/world/us-turns-attention-to-alqaeda-in-iran/2006/03/21/1142703358742.html


*edit: posted in wrong place. tidied it up to make it coherent, I hope . . .

[NNN0LHI]

5. They are holding out for the best deal they can get before screwing Iran

Just like Iraq.

Don

[bigtree]

6. I can't imagine anything they need from the U.S. at this point

Russia needs to go ahead with the nuclear plant they're building in Iran, China isn't going to let go of the $100b oil deal they have with Iran. What happens to that if there is some kind of sanction action, or even a hint?. I think China has nothing to lose in opposing this. Other satellites of Russia and China will be influenced by what they do. Pakistan repeated their objection to military force today. Japan has oil business on Iranian land, as do the French. Europe is moving beyond the influence of US dollars, which is the only alliance they actually respect. Iran has exploited this with it's major oil finds. Venezuela is reportedly moving toward replacing US oil revenue with China by the end of the year.

Whatever Bush does, he won't get a free ride from the world players like he did with Iraq. Remember, Iran has never been sanctioned by the UN. The UN's own report will not show any evidence that Iran is trying to build a bomb, outside of their refusal to cooperate with investigators in ways we wouldn't expect countries like Pakistan and India to comply.

So, I think these developments represent a setback, perhaps a significant one for international cover for any Bush assault on Iran. Of course, the UN couldn't restrain him in Iraq . . . so there's no telling what he'll do. I'll say this, If he does move against Iran militarily without some cover from the UN, it will be an even balder thuggery than in Iraq. We'll really be steppin' out then!

[NNN0LHI]

7. Trade with the USA is what they covet. The more the better

China wants to continue stocking our Walmarts and financing our debt. Russia wants to keep buying agriculture products to eat and keep selling us oil. Its really pretty simple.

Don

[bigtree]

8. I think they're more than satisfied to see us overextended in Iraq

spending a billion a week on Iraq and Afghanistan, as they hold a good chunk of the 40% of our national debt that is foreign-owned. I still don't see how we could do anything to China at this point which would cause them to go along with any significant sanction of their new trading partner who represents distance from the US and its influence. That's the trend, away from US paternalism and toward Iran in particular.

I can't see the U.S. punishing Russia or China any more than sanctions against Iran would, at least not on the pretext of Russia or China's opposition to UN reproval of Iran.

[NNN0LHI]

9. I think you may be missing the point?

They don't want us to go down either. We are the golden goose. If we become extinct so do they.

Don

[bigtree]

10. I don't think China fears that Iran has nukes. I think Iran's bluffing.

China knows better than anyone, and they've been supporting Iran throughout. I don't see them flipping because they want to protect us in some way from Iran and some non-existent weapons. Is that what you mean?

[NNN0LHI]

11. It really has nothing to do with nukes

It all has to do with showing who the boss is. The USA cannot have leaders like Iran's and Venezuela's flipping us off and getting away with it. Sets a precedent for others to follow. Republicans are not going to allow it. Democrats aren't going to either.

Don't think the leaders of Germany, Japan, Italy, and Korea like seeing other world leaders actually acting like they run their own countries. Next thing you know the German, Japanese, Italian, and Korean people will be asking their politicians how much longer are we going to have US military bases in our country?

Stuff like that ruins everything.

As for China what are they going to do. Send their blue water navy that they don't have and protect Iran? Don't think so. They will take the best deal they can muster from the USA and screw Iran. Iran knows this too. I'm not sure what Iran's plan is? I suppose we will find out soon enough.

Don

[bigtree]

12. I don't think for a minute China would act against us on Iran's behalf

in any aggressive way, even if they did have the military means to stop us. What I'm talking about is their cooperation in the international sanction of Iran, and I still haven't heard anything that would make me believe they can be pressured by the US to support sanctions from the UN. Outside of that Iran is on their own, although I think any military action against Iran is going to spark a larger regional protest than the Iraq invasion did.