Ahmedinejad Rebuked at Polls

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. Minimal they may be, but they are directed at enrichment, and put the UNSC on record as not accepting enrichment, and support for them shows this is about enrichment, and not just past violations of the NPT.

2. Glad to hear y'all now think this is minimal, interesting that a few months ago the Iran-apologist chorus was all opposed to even IAEA referral to the UNSC.

3. If these dont work, I expect UK, France and Germany will all support stronger sanctions. Indeed they accepted sanctions this weak to keep Russia and China on board. You may think that UK, France and Germany are nont responsible powers.

So, you still think that China and Russia are going to support stricter sanctions in order to appear respectable, even though they're had the milder ones watered down?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


So, you still think that China and Russia are going to support stricter sanctions in order to appear respectable, even though they're had the milder ones watered down?

I think it depends on how things play out. I think a year ago they wouldnt have agreed to this, but Irans open defiance of the IAEA and then UNSC, and Irans behavior on other issues, increased the cost to them of a veto enough that they would accept this. IF Iran modifies it behavior enough, and is less defiant, than I dont think they will support stricter sanctions. If, OTOH, Iran reacts by increasing its defiance, than the cost to Russia and China of a veto will increase.

How Iran behaves will depend on many things, including its own internal politics, its view of its leverage, etc. Much also depends on politics in the west, including the USA. The gradual shifting of US policy back towards cooperation with Europe has been important in getting this far. Whether that will continue, accelerate, or perhaps reverse (unlikely) will have an impact as well.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I think it depends on how things play out. I think a year ago they wouldnt have agreed to this, but Irans open defiance of the IAEA and then UNSC, and Irans behavior on other issues, increased the cost to them of a veto enough that they would accept this. IF Iran modifies it behavior enough, and is less defiant, than I dont think they will support stricter sanctions. If, OTOH, Iran reacts by increasing its defiance, than the cost to Russia and China of a veto will increase.

All Iran needs to do is continue enriching uranium. IN about a year the new Russia built reactor will open, and if by then the Iranians have set up a fully functional uranium enrichment cycle, from getting the stuff out of the ground to putting it in a reactor, they will claim victory.

Now that thse weak sanctions have passed, Russia and China can sit back. How can Iran "escalate" iots defiance? It was told to stop enrichment. It didn;t. Weak sanctions are passed. They keep enriching. Where is the "escalation"? The Iranians don't need to actually build any nuclear weapons - all they have to do is set up the technology to the point that they could build a nuke in a short time. MOst of that they can do simply by continuing to do what they have done. Why should China and Russia sacrfice their commercial interests in Iran to make the US and Europe feel safer?

How Iran behaves will depend on many things, including its own internal politics, its view of its leverage, etc. Much also depends on politics in the west, including the USA. The gradual shifting of US policy back towards cooperation with Europe has been important in getting this far. Whether that will continue, accelerate, or perhaps reverse (unlikely) will have an impact as well.

Certainly the US backing down from intarnsigence and following the carrots and sticks route allowed it to get this farm, by showing just how far the Iranian's were willing to do.

As for votes in the UNSC, for some reason you assume that a tough European and American resolution would fail only based on a Russian and Chinese veto. I would doubt that the US and Europe could get 10 votes if the text is such that many countries would see it as opening the road to war, or continuing on this path of creating a new nuclear double standard.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

"All Iran needs to do is continue enriching uranium. IN about a year the new Russia built reactor will open, and if by then the Iranians have set up a fully functional uranium enrichment cycle, from getting the stuff out of the ground to putting it in a reactor, they will claim victory. "

in fact the Iranians HAVE threatened retaliation in the event sanctions are passed. Perhaps that is a hollow threat.

"Now that thse weak sanctions have passed, Russia and China can sit back. How can Iran "escalate" iots defiance? It was told to stop enrichment. It didn;t. Weak sanctions are passed. They keep enriching. "
Where is the "escalation"? The Iranians don't need to actually build any nuclear weapons - all they have to do is set up the technology to the point that they could build a nuke in a short time. MOst of that they can do simply by continuing to do what they have done.

We shall have to see how Iran reacts.


" Why should China and Russia sacrfice their commercial interests in Iran to make the US and Europe feel safer? "

Why are they expected to vote for the current weak sanctions? Tell me? What do they get out of that?
avoiding a crisis in their relations with the West? Averting escalation towards war by the US? Im not sure, you tell me.


"Certainly the US backing down from intarnsigence and following the carrots and sticks route allowed it to get this farm, by showing just how far the Iranian's were willing to do. "


we have supported a negotiating path for several years. at most we've modified that slightly.

"As for votes in the UNSC, for some reason you assume that a tough European and American resolution would fail only based on a Russian and Chinese veto. I would doubt that the US and Europe could get 10 votes if the text is such that many countries would see it as opening the road to war, or continuing on this path of creating a new nuclear double standard."

I wasnt expecting 10 votes for a resolution for war, but for sanctions as an alternative to war. I dont have nearly as much faith as you do in the resolution of LDCs to harm their relations with the West for the sake of Irans right to enrich Uranium. If China wouldnt then, Ghana and Peru and so forth wouldnt. And if China would, then Ghana and Peru dont matter.

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by GePap
in fact the Iranians HAVE threatened retaliation in the event sanctions are passed. Perhaps that is a hollow threat.

Weak sanctions like the ones that did pass would not need muct retaliation. Strong sanctions like the ones imposed on Saddam, that would be different.

Why are they expected to vote for the current weak sanctions? Tell me? What do they get out of that?
avoiding a crisis in their relations with the West? Averting escalation towards war by the US? Im not sure, you tell me.

Both China and Russia recognize the validity of the NPT, because it obviously helps them too, to be part of this nuclear monopoly. If anything, Russia and China seems more sane about their nukes than the US (unlike the US both have pledged never to be the first to use nukes, and neither is talking baout new battlefield nukes). Both states know that Iran has violated the NPT by carrying out secret nuclear work, and neither would benefit greatly from Iran creating nukes. But as I said earlier, neither is worried about a civilian Iranian nuclear program either. They do not view the Iranian regime as an ideological threat, and would probably be fine letting Iran enrich uranium as long as they followed all the rules of the NPT.

So it is in the interest of Russia and China to slap Iran's hand for undermining the NPT by its actions. Doing so does not need to mean breaking their relations, including financial ones, with the regime.

I wasnt expecting 10 votes for a resolution for war, but for sanctions as an alternative to war. I dont have nearly as much faith as you do in the resolution of LDCs to harm their relations with the West for the sake of Irans right to enrich Uranium. If China wouldnt then, Ghana and Peru and so forth wouldnt. And if China would, then Ghana and Peru dont matter.

China and Russia are simply to large and important to ignore. Any state that would downgrade or seriously cut back their relations or ties to both these states over the actions of Iran would be idiotic, because there is nothing that can be done about the fact that Russia and China will be large players. JUst having permanent seats in the UNSC gives them that power. Hell, look at all Putin has been doing, and how much he has undermined the West left and right, but he has the energy supplies, and the West can't do ****. As for the Chinese, Tianemen did not seem to slow them down any, even after huge Western outcries. Why would them vetoing some Iran resolution do so?

Just look at the resolution that got passed - it was weak because the Europeans and Americans wanted to pass something, anything. They could very easily have put forward a resolution imposing harsh sanctions, threatening possible military action, and then dares China and Russia veto it, OR ESLE. They didn't, because that would have been monumentally stupid, and would have shown that given the fact Russia and China are the biggest investors in Iran overall, without them you can't really make sanctions work.