CNN.com - China, Russia united on Iran - Mar 21, 2006

CNN.com - China, Russia united on Iran - Mar 21, 2006: "After more than two weeks of discussions, the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council -- China, Russia, the United States, Britain and France -- have been unable to agree on a draft statement that tells Iran to stop enriching uranium."

According to China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang, the objectives of Russia and China "are to solve the issue in a peaceful way through negotiations." He also said, "China supported a Russian compromise proposal that would allow Iran to use nuclear fuel enriched in an internationally monitored plant on Russian soil."

Who wouldn't be interested in the Russian proposal to allow enrichment on soil? Weeks ago even Iran was interested in the Russian proposal, although with the caveat that they also be able to enrich uranium on their territory as well.

It is a sad state of affairs when bringing a nation to the U.N. Security Council is met with the threat of some type of retaliation from the nation in question. This seemingly simple step, after years of the EU-3 negotiations and it cannot be brought to or decided on by the council. It's not like the sky will fall; Iran will have another couple years and negotiations before any meaningful step would be taken by the U.N.

Further Qin said, "under current circumstances, Russia's proposal is a helpful way to break the impasse. We call on all parties concerned to step up their negotiations and demonstrate flexibility." What does that mean? If he is referring to the "two-week deadline" for a report of compliance from Iran, that is one thing and should be negotiable. Is it a call to ease up on Iran and perhaps allow them to enrich uranium? Are they also referring to Iran stepping up and being flexible?

Unfortunately I don't believe they are expecting as much from Iran as they are from the rest. If efforts by Russia and China to stall actions fail (not likely) what would be the ramifications to their economic interests with Iran?

Yesterday President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the "Iranian nation has acquired the knowledge and technology for peaceful production of nuclear fuel and would stand firmly to regain its rights." Sounds like a done deal to me, they just need to get moving on it.

One could and I'm sure many do, take the stand that Iran is in its right to move forward on the nuclear question. But do many truly believe the "peaceful" part? Ahmadinejad doesn't mince words when it comes to Israel or the West for that matter, especially the U.S./Bush.

During his speech he ran through the past year; one piece of which was the "sacreligious cartoons." The cartoons are a big talking point for him; do we want to trust someone that enflames passions like this?

According to Ahmadinejad, "we are a big family which should build our dear and great homeland and in accordance with its long history, turn it into the land of science, culture, justice, freedom, monotheism and model of pure life and developed life -- as it is today the model of awakening and independence seeking among the world nations."

What is monotheism to Ahmadinejad? Where is this road leading to? Are the usual suspects just looking at this as another Bush "the Hitler of our times" thirst for world domination? Or are we going to try to look at it from a perspective that allows for the possibility that Bush isn't a terrorist and that some nationstates, or at least their leadership don't always have peace in mind?