Thanks For Nothing, Russia and China
From a report on the referral of Iran to the UN Security Council:
The U.N. nuclear watchdog Saturday reported Iran to the U.N. Security Council in a resolution expressing concern that Tehran’s nuclear program may not be “exclusively for peaceful purposes.” Iran retaliated immediately, saying it would resume uranium enrichment at its main plant instead of in Russia.
The landmark decision by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 35-nation board sets the stage for future action by the top U.N. body, which has the authority to impose economic and political sanctions.
Still, any such moves were weeks if not months away. Two permanent council members, Russia and China, agreed to referral only on condition the council take no action before March.
Yes, by all means, let’s take action through inaction – what a novel idea!
Hey, here’s a thought -maybe we can get Ted Kennedy, Ralph Neas, NARAL, and John Kerry together and filibuster Iran! The practical consequences would be exactly the same…
Have a little faith in our President — I think he’s earned it.
If he signed off on this deal, it’s because another month of Iranian action will not make a serious difference in the practical situation. It may even be that we want to wait a month before doing anything for some reason. Certainly, our position continues to grow stronger. The only way this would be a bad thing would be if the Iranian position were growing stronger even faster — for example if they were within a month or two of having a functioning atomic device they could test.
It could be that it’s going to take that time to gather the troops we want in Kuwait or the ships we want in the Gulf. It could be that we have reason to believe that a month of pressure will produce a military coup, or a rebellion by the ethnic Arabs in Khuzestan — where most of Iran’s oil is located. It could even be that we want to watch the Iranian activity as they frantically scramble to get something put together, in order to discover more locations involved in their nuclear work.
This President isn’t his father, much less any of the recent Democratic party candidates. He wouldn’t hold off on action if he thought an Iranian bomb were imminent.
Good points all…I just argued in another post that a position of strength affords patience, and yet, on this issue, here I am ignoring my own advice…okay, then, we wait for now…I suppose you’re right, one month probably won’t hurt…
A commentor on Elephants in Academia made an excellent point that had never even occurred to me.
The presidency of the Security Council rotates monthly. If this matter were to come before the Security Council in February, the meeting would be chaired by the U.S. Ambassador — John Bolton. Because of the one month delay demanded by China and Russia, the matter will instead come before the Security Council in March and the meeting will be chaired by the U.N. Ambassador from … wait for it … DENMARK.
Combine with the fact that the controversy appeared suddenly, several months after the cartoons were published — cartoons significantly less offensive than, for example, South Park’s treatment of the Prophet a few years ago — immediately after it was announced that the U.N. Security Council would be considering Iran’s nuclear program under Denmark’s watch.
If that’s just a coincidence, it’s time for me to begin work on my tinfoil hat.
Apologies… I should have linked directly to that commentor’s own blog entry: here.
Gak. It sounded so plausible — but with just a bit of research it turns out that Denmark doesn’t hold the Security Council presidency until June. It’s Feb: U.S., March: Argentina, April: China, May: Congo, June: Denmark.
Still seems plausible that part of the delay is to keep the meeting from occurring under U.S. leadership — but the Denmark connection is less relevant.