Monday, March 13, 2006

More Mixed Messages From Russia On Iran

Earlier today, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed disappointment at Iran's conduct in the nuclear talks.

"We are highly disappointed with Tehran's conduct during these (nuclear) talks. Iran is absolutely failing to help those who are seeking peaceful ways to resolve this problem," Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying by ITAR-TASS.

Sounds like they are serious, right?

But then, later on, we received the report that both China and Russia have rejected proposals to produce just a statement on Iran.

Russia and China have rejected proposals from the United States and other veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council for a statement demanding that Iran clear up suspicions about its nuclear programme, which Washington contends is meant to produce an atomic bomb, diplomats said.

So, what's a person to believe, anyway? It's just a statement, right? It's not like we are asking for sanctions at this time. It's not like we are asking for military threats and/or action. It's a statement that merely says that the U.N. is demanding that they clear up suspicions about the nuclear program; it is not a statement demanding that they stop the enrichment of uranium, altogether. We just want them to verify that they are doing, what they say they are doing.

So, one cannot help ask, how serious are the other developed nations about the Iranian situation, anyway? Russia, China, and Europe are more endangered than the U.S, on the basis of their closer proximity to the rogue state. You would think they would be a little concerned. You would also think that some progress needs to be made, and by that I mean, Iran has to bargain in good faith and actually sit down to talk without having their minds closed, before the discussions even begin. They aren't and it's becoming more and more apparent, they won't. In fact, it is becoming plainer and plainer that they have no intention of doing so, not now, not ever.

So? What's next? More talks about having talks? Russia felt it could help, so okay, they took a shot. It was worth a try, right? The EU has already failed, China doesn't care, and the U.S. has no bargaining power. So what's a world to do, in a case like this?

Well, I can't say that I have the answer. But, I can feel safe to draw at least a few conclusions, from all of this:

So much for this false utopian dream of "one world, one planet, and one people" garbage, pitched by the Marxist left-wingers. So, much for the belief that diplomacy and pacifism always works better than force. And, so much for the worthless entity that the UN has become.

13 comments:

superfrenchie said...

LASunsett: // So what's a world to do, in a case like this?//

Be nice with the mullahs?

Look, Iran will get its bomb. It's unrealistic to expect a country with a 5,000 year history as proud as the Persians to kneel in front of the US, a 250 year old power. You would not want to be told what to do about your defense by China. Well, Iran does not want the US and the EU to tell it what to do.

And since there is no good option to prevent them from getting their nukes, they will get it. Gotta live with it!

I also predict that just like any other power with nukes, they will behave responsibly with it. There's a lot to be said for the MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction) theory. It has worked for the last 50 years, and it will continue to work with Iran as a member of the nuclear club.

Always On Watch said...

SuperFrenchie: And since there is no good option to prevent them from getting their nukes, they will get it. Gotta live with it!

The problem is we may not LIVE with it! If Ahmadinejad pursues his mahdi complex, Israel and any Western country will not be safe from attack.

superfrenchie said...

AoW: Ahmadinejad has a lot of power, but ultimately the mullahs are pulling the strings. And they won't let him attack Israel or Western Europe.

Israel has nukes, Russia has nukes, the UK has nukes, France has nukes. Iran will talk loud and carry a big stick, but that's all it will do.

Look, I'm not crazy about them getting nukes. It's just that the reality is that they will likely get them.

One mistake often made, and I'm afraid the US is making it right now, is to assume that there is a large opposition in Iran ready to change things. There is quite an opposition, but on the nukes question, it's a pretty united country: they all want it and they all support Ahmadinejad. It's a matter of national pride.

ms. miami said...

sf- are you saying that were we to invade iran, we would not be welcomed by one and all with flowers and candy????

LASunsett said...

I also predict that just like any other power with nukes, they will behave responsibly with it. There's a lot to be said for the MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction) theory. It has worked for the last 50 years, and it will continue to work with Iran as a member of the nuclear club.

This is the attitude that Neville Chamberlain had concerning Hitler, isnt't it? Just learn to live with it. Forget about it and accept it, we are powerless to do anything about it. No need to worry, he'll stop after we give him the Sudetenland.

Oh, and I almost forgot. "We have brought back peace in our time."

I am sorry Frenchie, but I cannot share your optimism. MAD was based on the fact that the other people didn't want to die in a nuclear confrontation, whereas, the radical government of Iran doesn't care. They would be more than honored to die for the cause of jihad.

Sorry. but Iran is a far cry from the Persian Empire and the Soviets. But on the right night, you could share that information at your local tavern. The drunk that sits at the end of the bar, on a regular basis, might believe you. ;)

LASunsett said...

sf- are you saying that were we to invade iran, we would not be welcomed by one and all with flowers and candy????



Ms Miami, it appears you can hardly contain your sarcasm. But I will say, that anyone who said such a thing was certainly very foolish and overly optimistic. In many cases, the Iraqis have been very receptive, but in some cases, they have not. I have had credible eyewitnesses tell me so. But that isn't a part of the equation, if you oppose the war, is it?

I also will agree that the President badly underestimated the resistance. He miscalculated. But in his defense he has been pressured to fight a perfect and politically correct war, which in once sense is much like Vietnam. (There are many differences in the two, that are often overlooked by critics, as well)

You see, the left wants a perfect and politically correct war. But not because they give a rat's derriere about the innocents they claim to care about.

What they do care about is simple.

They want Iraq to fail, so they can say, "See, see. We told you it would be another Vietnam!". They want that and want to protest it, because many of them are reaching middle age now and they feel their lives are essentially worthless without a cause to protest against. It let's them regress back to their college days.

I don't recall the left making such noise, when the Serbs were being bombed, do you? Very few cries of collateral damage were ever voiced and if there were, the MSM didn't cover it. It was a noble cause for us to stop one madman, but not another.

Where I come from that's called hypocrisy and I don't buy into it, one iota. Granted, there may some people that were against both wars, but they are a minority.

No, I would have handled it a lot different, than Bush has. And if you are against the war anyway, I guarantee you would not like the way I handled it, because I would not bow to the pressure Bush has. If you go to war, you go to war to win it. Otherwise you don't go.

A.C. said...

If some of the reports about Russia helping Saddam pre-invasion are true, then I think we need to be very wary of Putin's statements about Iran.

It's pretty clear they don't want us in the ME. After the siutation regarding the poisoning of the Ukranian president, seems we need to do more verifying than trusting with that bunch.

Always On Watch said...

Considering the zealotry of the mullahs, I don't see any hope there. They are intractable, IMO.

Michener's book Caravans, quite old and fiction as well, speaks to the intractability of the mullahs in Afghanistan of the 1940s and 1950s. The mullahs lost sway for a time, but came roaring back with the Taliban. Michener was no Islamophobe, BTW.

LA's point about Chamberlain is well taken. Ostriching will not make the problem go away. It never fails to amaze me that Leftists are quite confrontational about certain cultural matters, but not about problems which can jeopardize the very existence of mankind.

SF: One mistake often made, and I'm afraid the US is making it right now, is to assume that there is a large opposition in Iran ready to change things.

Agreed. Something similar manifested itself with the election of Hamas to power.

ms. miami said...

lasunsett-

you're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but i don't find the comparison between sf's belief in theories of m.a.d. and pre-wwii appeasement to really work.

as far as the current situation in iraq, i don't think that you and i disagree so much on the issues.

however, i can't speak to your views on "the left," whoever that's supposed to be (me, i only speak for myself) and whatever you purport this bloc of people to advocate.

i think it's a shame that discourse in this country has come to "the left" vs. "the right." i find it to be a harmful and inaccurate simplification of issues. in my opinion, it only serves to dumb down what should be thoughtful and meaningful discussions, especially considering what this country is undertaking.

Always On Watch said...

Ms. Miami: what should be thoughtful and meaningful discussions

I'm relatively new to watching politics, but I cannot remember a more strident time in my lifetime. So much is ad hominem nowadays. And reasoned discussions about important issues seem fewer and fewer, and various politicians care little about anything except for jockeying for position--at least, that is my perception.

Of course, there have been such periods previously in American history.

LASunsett said...

The event that probably (more than anythng else in the world) catalyzed my interest in politics was the assassination of RFK. I had remembered when JFK had been shot down, especially the fact that nothing else was on TV for 3-4 days. But I was really too young to grasp the details with any real comprehension. With RFK, I had a little more awareness and was able to understand much more. My parents liked John, but never were too fond of Bobby. One thing for sure, they did not like LBJ one bit, And now that I have read much about him, I can understand why.

Since that time, I have worked on four campaigns, two at the local level, one at the state, and one federal. I have served in the US Army, worked at both the state and local levels. Although I love it dearly, politics is politics. It can be a vicious and dirty game and I feel has gotten more so in recent years. AOW is right, this is not the only time it has been so, but now we have a 24 hours news media, via cable news and the internet. We are flooded with analyses, predictions, debates, and other manifestations that the game produces, daily and at the push of a button.

The current cycle of nastiness started when Reagan left. Lee Atwater ran the elder Bush's campaign and was ruthless, in my opinion, even though the nature of the allegations made against Dukakis were true. I don't believe that he needed to go the route he did, because Dukakis was as liberal as one could get at the time and was beatable on that premise, alone. He was a Kennedy Democrat, that didn't help his status much either. There just wasn't any need for it. (Once Bush had been blindsided by Rather in that famous interview and turned it around on Dan, he was in the driver's seat.)

Then came the campaign of 92.

The GOP got dirty and tried to use all of the wrong approaches again. Why not? It had worked before. But they failed to recognize that the country had changed somewhat. The political pendulum had swung back toward the left, just a hair. Generation X could now vote. (Note - The transformation of Clinton's image from the long, boring speech he gave at the convention in 88 to the media darling he had become in 92, was remarkable.) He won that election when he played the sax on Arsenio. Sad but, true.

Once the GOP got control of Congress, Clinton's honeymoon came to a screeching halt. The country had thought they had hired a centrist and it became apparent that he was a little more to the left of center, than first thought. (I suspect Hillary had an influence and she has always been a leftist, which is why I do not buy her centrist reformation now.)

Gingrich actually came up with a brilliant strategy with the Contract With America campaign and capitalized on that attitude. The GOP had it made, they had a true mandate. Some of the Gen Xers were starting to grow up and were getting tired of the way government was headed. The people spoke. They did it on the issues and won the battle of ideas, easily.

But, with the upset victory came brashness and arrogance. Where they made their big mistake was the impeachment. I think the people would have accepted impeachment, if the focus would have stayed on Whitewater. But once it was expanded to include the sexcapades of Clinton, it became a hateful and bitter vendetta on the GOP's part. They could have been more patient and Whitewater may have turned into something, but they got impulsive and went after a perjury charge, instead.

Then came the perceived stolen election. And well, you know the rest. In fact, you probably knew all of this. But, I said all of this not to bore you, but said it to say this:

The opposition party is always the party that seems to get the most negative. And in my opinion, today's opposition has certainly raised the bar and gotten lower than any other, in my memory.

I told my GOP friends during the impeachment, this would come back to haunt them. And it has. Today, we can see that plainly. So, it makes sense to repeat it again for the benefit of the Dems. There will come a time when someday, you will regain the WH and possibly Congress. When? I cannot say. But because the way the radical wing has been behaving as of late, it may not be anytime soon. But someday, it will happen. And this will haunt them, as well. You really do reap what you sow. And when bad seeds are sown, bad plants grow.

ms. miami said...

(Although I love it dearly, politics is politics. It can be a vicious and dirty game and I feel has gotten more so in recent years.)

lasunsett- sure, but we are each responsible for how we choose to behave.

i don't buy the "but that's just the way it is" argument (if that is what you're trying to argue).

LASunsett said...

i don't buy the "but that's just the way it is" argument (if that is what you're trying to argue).

No, I am not saying that it cannot be helped. But unless the ones that are guilty are voted out, it's going to stay that way for awhile. Look, it is what it is.

That's a big reason that I now, work in the private sector. I tried to do a good job, but it's a bigger beast than I can slay, by myself.

I will say this, though. Look back at JFK in 60, Reagan in 80, Clinton in 92, and the Gingrich revolution in 94. All were relatively positive messages that promised hope, optimism, and a vision. We sure could use that today.