"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Russia drops enrichment plan for Iran-World-The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

Russia drops enrichment plan for Iran�-�World�-�The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

"Russia yesterday closed ranks with the United States and its European allies over Iran's suspect nuclear programs, abandoning a plan to allow Tehran to conduct some uranium-enrichment programs on its own soil." Although, Russia does still hold a veto in the U.N. Security Council, so we'll see how far they are willing to go.

"Russia, which has major commercial interests in Iran, has been seeking a diplomatic solution to the standoff." The hoped for Russian deal of spent uranium/uranium enrichment on Russian soil fell through, as if there had been any doubt. As noted yesterday, Iran was still insisting on uranium enrichment on their territory as well. Regardless of where any negotiations lead, Iran is going to do what Iran is going to do. Through all the stalling tactics that these negotiations were from day one, it is the international community that needs to negotiate with itself and decide how it is going to stand; that's the negotiation that really mattered all along. Meanwhile, the U.S. is not the only country with diplomats/politicians that like to pull Galloways/Gores/Clintons/whatever you want to call them, as Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Security Committee Viktor Ilukhin, said to the IRNA, '"said if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) prefers pressure and threat to law, the international body would sustain a big damage."' Adding further insult to injury "Vice Speaker of State Duma Sergei Baburin expressed regret over US bullying polices in the world and said the US tries to launch a military attack on Iran under the guise of economic sanctions." Further, "A Russian military and political analyst Alexi Arbatov blamed the current crisis on the wrong policy adopted by the US in dealing with Iran's peaceful nuclear activities. America is now conducing a survey on performance, objectives and costs of military operation and if it makes such a blunder, the flames of such war would engulf the whole region."

According to CNN, "A senior EU diplomat told Reuters on Wednesday the Security Council was expected to meet next week to discuss Iran."

The above can be considered more of the same delaying that the U.N. is infamous for; the Iran situation as stated previously is not new.

"The diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the council would work quickly to issue a "presidential statement" calling on Iran to suspend all atomic fuel enrichment activity and fully cooperate with U.N. investigations into the nature of its nuclear ambitions, Reuters said."

The U.N. and the word working quickly do not belong in the same statement, however this can still be considered an accomplishment.

"If Iran defies the call, the council could repeat its message with a possible threat of action if it were unheeded."

To this possible threat, according to the AP, Iran's delegation says, "The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," and the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll." Back in Tehran, UPI informs us that President Ahmadinejad said that Iran will not "submit to bullying," which is obviously in reference to the U.S. more that the U.N. since it is very apparent the enemy here needs to be the U.S.. Afterall, according to the same piece, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, talks with Russia could become "moot," if things continue as they are.

From what I have been reading, I am not aware of any Russian proposal, but "under the current conditions, Russia's plan is acceptable to Iran, but if Iran's nuclear file is referred to the U.N. Security Council, the Russian proposal will lose its meaning." None of the proposals have had any meaning for Iran, if they did not include what they have said they want through their threats and "bullying." Could he be referring to the tidbit in the main article this post references? "In the face of adamant U.S. opposition, visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov did not even raise Moscow's compromise idea in meetings yesterday with President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice." Maybe, maybe not, but does it really matter? Iran is not truly concerned about where the U.N./Russia/etc., talks go, ultimately they are going to do what they are going to do; although it would be nice for them if the U.N. continues to operate as itself and perhaps even gives Iran what it wants.

The circle of verbal diplomacy continues.


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks