Well, we can breathe easier: “World power reach agreement over Iran nuclear program.” They don’t like it! A sanguine William Kucewicz opines that “Trade sanctions could prompt regime change in Iran.” But then there’s this splash of cold water from Slate:
The allied diplomats announced yesterday that if Iran doesn't spot enriching uranium, they're all now on the same page that Tehran should absolutely, without question, face "steps," "measures," "actions" and "negative disincentives." One word not used: "sanctions." The S-word isn't being used because, a small problem here, Russia and China haven't agreed to impose them.My prediction: Iran will make some token gesture (say, suspending enrichment for six months) leading Russia and China to claim the mullahs are “cooperating.” There will no sanctions, especially from China, which is desperately dependent on Iranian oil.
2 comments:
Chinese oil is a problem. But the main obstacle is that Bush blindly burned every bridge he had, by claiming the U.N. as justification for his war. The grand coalition of 300 soldiers representing 35 countries is a talking point nobody ever bought. Now the other U.N. members refuse to give Bush even the smallest toehold upon which he might again pretend he speaks for the world.
Prediction #2: Far more rapid movement... sometime after noon on January 20th, 2009.
Iran is nuking up fast because they've sensibly observed what happens to Axis of Evil members that have WMDs (N.Korea), and what happens to those that have no WMDs (Iraq). But wasn't that 3-word catch phrase a grabber? It sure did "put Iran on notice," didn't it?
And Bush can't do squat, because his diplomatic bungling is biting him on the ass. But wasn't sending them John Bolton hilarious? Israel must be laughing until they cry.
What do you think we should do?
Post a Comment