As the United Nations Security Council moves toward a vote on a resolution imposing additional sanctions on Iran over its nuclear activities, China is being remarkably silent, at least in public. In the wake of the announcement of the Iran-Turkey-Brazil Joint Declaration in Tehran on May 17 and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s announcement in Washington the following day that the “P-5” had reached agreement on the main elements of a sanctions resolution, Beijing has said relatively little.
Since mid May, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesmen have said that China continues to support both tracks of the “dual-track” approach to Iran, that working a new sanctions resolution does not mean that the door to further negotiations is closed, and that any new sanctions approved by the Security Council should not punish Iranian people or affect their normal life”. But that’s about it.
At the end of May, China Daily published a notable Op Ed, see here, by the deputy secretary-general of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association which argued that, with the announcement of the Joint Declaration, “there is no longer any rationality in imposing further sanctions on Iran” and challenging the Obama Administration’s renewed insistence that Tehran must suspend all enrichment-related activities to avoid further sanctions. When Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was in Beijing late last week, he said, following discussions with Chinese officials, that both Russia and China “are against forcing the voting process” in New York, see here.
But, the next day, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signaled at a joint press conference in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel that Moscow is not going to do anything of significance to delay a vote in the Security Council. That appears to be China’s position as well.
China’s reticence is a powerful indicator of how complicated Beijing’s calculations about the Iranian nuclear issue and multilateral sanctions have become. Four points are noteworthy in this regard.
First, China succeeded in extracting extensive concessions from the Obama Administration with respect to the content of the specific measures contained in the draft sanctions resolution. Since 2006, Beijing’s approach to the Iranian nuclear issue has been to give Washington just enough on sanctions in the Security Council to keep the United States in the Council with the issue, while watering down the actual sanctions approved so that they would not impede the development of Sino-Iranian relations. Fundamentally, China is continuing that approach now.
As we noted on May 19 and have predicted for some time, in order to win China’s acquiescence to a new sanctions resolution, “Washington had to give up on any idea of a ban on new investment or other measures that might have impeded Iran’s ability to produce and export hydrocarbons”, see here. Not only does China buy a significant portion of its oil imports from Iran; as we have written previously, Chinese energy companies have, since the end of 2007, concluded a growing number of investment contracts for Iranian projects. Beijing was determined that a new sanctions resolution that would not impede the implementation of those contracts or the conclusion of new contracts by Chinese companies, and the Obama Administration predictably caved on the issue. Moreover, Beijing appears to have extracted a commitment from the Obama Administration that U.S. secondary sanctions will not be imposed on Chinese energy companies or other entities doing business in Iran. Chinese diplomats also negotiated the Obama Administration down with regard to the specific Iranian individuals and entities to be identified in the “annexes” accompanying a new sanctions resolution, to ensure that no individual or entity is included that Chinese companies might need to deal with in pursuing their activities in the Islamic Republic.
Second, while China would prefer to delay adoption of a new sanctions resolution in light of the Iran-Turkey-Brazil Joint Declaration, Beijing is not prepared to “stiff” the United States on the matter. In a post we published on May 31, we anticipated that, as long as Iran continued to act “in what China and other important non-Western players consider a reasonable way regarding implementation of the Joint Declaration”, China would seek to delay Security Council action on new sanctions. But, in his remarks in Beijing last week, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov (see, here) noted that, while Russia and China both opposed “forcing” a Security Council vote on sanctions, “the final version discussed by the ‘six’ focuses entirely on nuclear nonproliferation concerns with maximum regard for the economic and other interests of both Russia and China”—an indication that Beijing as well as Moscow could tolerate the resolution’s premature adoption.
With the Obama Administration seemingly impervious to reason on the subject of the Joint Declaration and, since June 1, a Mexican government presiding over the Council that will accede to U.S. demands for a vote on the draft resolution as soon as possible, the only option that China has to delay action at this point would be by exercising its veto—and Beijing is not prepared to do that over what is, in essence, a scheduling matter. From Beijing’s perspective, such a course would risk “liberating” Washington to deal with the Iranian nuclear problem outside of the Security Council, and could damage important equities in the U.S.-China bilateral relationship as well.
Third, with the passage of a new sanctions resolution in the very near term an almost certain outcome, China is working to manage its relationship with the Islamic Republic and limit any negative fallout on Sino-Iranian relations. Beyond longstanding and expanding energy ties, Sino-Iranian trade relations are expanding nicely, and China has now replaced Germany as the leading supplier of manufactured exports to Iran. Against this backdrop, China has been working since mid May to signal the Iranians that passage of a new sanctions resolution should not impede further development of Sino-Iranian relations. In late May, China offered a one billion Euro ($1.2 billion) loan to finance infrastructure projects in Tehran. Last week, it was announced that China is negotiating to extend another $1.2 billion in credit to Iran for the construction of six liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers.
In this context, it is interesting that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have been fairly outspoken in criticizing Russia’s public expressions of support for moving ahead with new sanctions against the Islamic Republic—but Tehran has been comparatively quiet on the subject of China’s position regarding the draft resolution.
Fourth, Beijing will face new challenges in managing its relations with Brazil and other prominent members of the “global South”—who are likely to feel quite ill-used if the Security Council’s acquiescence to U.S. demands for rapid adoption of a new sanctions resolution in the wake of the Joint Declaration’s announcement torpedoes its implementation. For some time, Chinese leaders have wanted “to have their cake and eat it too”—that is, for China to be one of the international system’s “big boys”, as a permanent member of the Security Council and a nuclear weapons state, while simultaneously preserving its “street cred” with non-aligned countries. We expect that it is going to get much harder for Beijing to pull off that balancing act in the future.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Rehmat,
As you know, the CIA has zero intelligence at hand, that the Iranian government has decided to build nukes. Zero. This being the case, one should consider the likelihood that an alleged concern about a secrety nuclear weapons development scheme is a cover story to conceal the agenda of pressuring Iran to end its support of the Palestinians.
Obama does not want to tell the American people: We are spending $100 billion per year to “protect” Israel and enable the continuing oppression of the Palestinians.
Instead, the game plan is to continue to deceive the American people so they think their security is somehow at risk, to a “threat” emanating from Iran.
Arnold,
Iran quite rightly is working toward strengthening the NPT, and of course, advancing the common Middle East agenda of getting nukes out of the region entirely.
It would be a serious error in judgement for Tehran to disavow the NPT. The emphasis should remain underlining US double-talk on the issue of what rights the signatories to the treatly possess.
I think you’re confused Alan. Sec of State Clinton said plainly that Iran did not have the right to enrichment. Obama is simply continuing the same policies as Bush, and UNSCRs on Israel are not comparable to those on Iran. Iran has a sovereign right to enrichment that the UNSC cannot trump, whilst Israel does not have a sovereign right to occupy Palestine.
Arnold writes: The dream that Barack Obama might be the president who could disentangle US interests from Israel’s has crashed against the reality the the United States has a political system that makes it impossible for a person who could do that to rise to power.
Yes. The American political system is neither ‘opening’ nor self correcting, but is progressively ‘closing’, the only stance respected being polarization. So now what?
Persian Gulf:
Pulling out of the treaty is a more likely response than suspending enrichment. If I was president of Syria, Lebanon or even Brazil, or maybe even Turkey, I’d consider leaving the NPT just because this episode – along with the cases of Israel and India – demonstrates that there are no benefits to NPT membership. I’m not sure why they have not.
Iran pulling out of the treaty but leaving the safeguards at Natanz might be something for Iran to consider. Especially now, with the US in especially vulnerable positions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Given Iran’s acceptance of the deal and the rejection of Viena group,as well as IAEA’s inaction, if the resolution passes as it stands, wouldn’t it be a unique excuse for Iran to withdraw from the NPT? Iran is not gonna get anything more by sticking to the treaty (if it can’t get medical isotopes, I can’t imagine what-else would be achievable), and may not get a better reason to leave it at some point in future. following the events of the past 8 years, Iran’s emphasis on the NPT has so far injected weakness. Iran was probably hoping that while the sanctions track is at play in the UN, she can go further in the nuclear front. the former seems to reach the end point. I am not fully aware of the internal development in Iran at the moment to know whether Iran can resist this last tectonic pressure, but it is unlikely to see a better outcome from the U.S. If Obama has reached the deadlock, there is no reason to hope for a better day on the U.S part.
Iran, as a signatory of NPT, has every right to enrich its nuclear fuel for its use in country’s power-generation, medical field and educational research. Over 45 of other NPT members are actively doing that and USrael has never objected to their activities. Furthermore, Tehran is under no obligation to “prove” to the sa-called international community – who is still waiting for the proof that why Washington invaded and occupied two of Iranian neighbors or why the US and France helped Israel to build its nuclear arsenal and against whom? No to protect it from being attack by its non-nuclear neighbors – but surely to blackmail the west.
The former chief of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (ISI), Lt. Gen. Mohammad Asad Durrani (he served as Pakistan’s anbassador to Germany and Saudi Arabia after his retirement from Army in 1993 – provided an insight into Washington’s problem with Islamic Republic: “Although Iran has always insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful purpose, the West is trying to give the world impression that Iran’s nuclear program is not peaceful. The United States is affraid of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and is trying to provoke other countries to wage a psychological war against Iran. The US threatening to impose further sanctions on Iran, even though other countries have said that previous sanctions have been inafective.”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/israeli-hasbara-and-irans-mass-protests/
Under Bush, the US said, in line with the UN Security Council resolutions that it wrote, that a suspension was a precondition for talks.
Under Obama, the US says, in line with the Security Council resolutions that it wrote, as well as though the Bush administration wrote, that a suspension and an effective US veto over Iran’s resumption of enrichment is necessarily the outcome of talks.
Talks about a suspension, talks about what mechanism to use to subject Iran’s enrichment and nuclear program to a US veto aren’t worth having. If the US was to change its policy and end its demand that Iran stop enriching, that message could be communicated publicly or privately, but without that talks would serve no purpose.
Well, anyway a suspension is not going to happen. Obama is going to have to decide how the US will relate with Iran in the absence of a suspension. Obama is choosing increased hostility. US soldiers in Afghanistan will pay for this choice as Iran’s civilians pay for it.
I’ll note again though, that by late 2007, Bush had chosen an agreement to disagree along with cooperation in other areas. Obama’s actions in 2010 are a step backwards. As of today, it is not possible to say Obama is following a less provocative course in its relations with Iran than Bush was at the end of his term.
The TRR deal could just be a trade of LEU for medical fuel. The US now openly says that it is to be used as leverage to accomplish a “comprehensive” deal – one in which the Iran comes to an agreement with the US about whether or not Iran suspends enrichment. We can see that the Brazil, Turkey deal is unacceptable to the US because it does not give the US leverage in a push push for a comprehensive agreement. Any proposal the US made in November must have if the US supported it.
If the US can buy Russian cooperation with sanctions in exchange for slowing its development of missile defense and Chinese cooperation by tolerating a wider range of Chinese currency management, then honestly I can’t fault Russia or China for taking advantage of their security council veto to advance their strategic interests. Even if Iran ensures that they endure some cost for their cooperation with the US, they are not the engines of these sanctions.
This sanctions policy is good for Israel because the principle that countries that oppose Israel are punished is being enforced. And Israel is not the country that has troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. This policy is bad for the US because US objectives in the region are becoming more difficult to achieve.
The dream that Barack Obama might be the president who could disentangle US interests from Israel’s has crashed against the reality the the United States has a political system that makes it impossible for a person who could do that to rise to power.
pmr9 – page 2 last 2 paragraphs:
“Emphasizing the importance of political and diplomatic efforts to find a negotiated solution guaranteeing that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes and noting in this regard the efforts of Turkey and Brazil towards an agreement with Iran on the Tehran Research Reactor that could serve as a confidence-building measure,”
“Emphasizing also, however, in the context of these efforts, the importance of Iran addressing the core issues related to its nuclear programme,”
The TRR is not the subject of these resolutions of course, and I imagine Iran enriching to 20% would be considered an unsatisfactory response as well.
The draft sanctions resolution doesn’t seem to have been updated to take account of the Tehran Declaration – instead it “regrets that Iran has not responded positively” to the original IAEA proposal for a fuel swap, even though it has sent a letter to the IAEA to state its acceptance based on the Tehran Declaration. Can they really now vote through a resolution that contains such a clearly false assertion? Isn’t there some way that Iran can challenge this in the International Court?
b – yes, and according to the BBC, diplomats are saying there is no chance of it NOT being passed tomorrow.
Eric/Cyrus – is it late in the day? It’s late in the day if you talk about the process starting with Bush, but it’s not late in the day if you talk about a process starting with Obama.
This “denying the right to enrich business” has grown a head of its own. In that State Dept briefing, enrichment is clearly linked to UNSC Resolutions, not a US standing policy. Obama told the BBC last year that Iran had “legitimate energy concerns and aspirations” – a bit ambiguous I grant you, but not a denial of rights.
The part of this that foxes everybody is where the UNSC starts and the IAEA ends, and where the TRR deal fits into it. The US are correct to say that Iran must suspend enrichment if UNSCRs are to be respected (a bit like the UNSCRs that demand Israel leave the Occupied Territories). I think Obama has so far left it within that framework. I agree with Arnold though when he says it would be a good idea if Obama was to explicitly say the US believes Iran has the right to the full fuel cycle, provided they are in compliance with their NPT obligations. On the other hand, the US does not have the right to think otherwise.
With regard to what looks like inevitable sanctions, it is important to realise these have nothing to do with the TRR. The P5+1 it seems are determined to treat the two issues separately, and now appear to be refusing to let the TRR deal act as a smokescreen.
Iran may withdraw the TRR offer after sanctions; that wouldn’t be surprising but it would still be poking Turkey and Brazil in the eye a bit. The Vienna Group may still be interested in pursuing it after sanctions, given how similar it is to the November version of the October deal. But Iran enriching to 20% and with more LEU makes it easier to pursue if secondary to measures on the wider programme.
Given that Iran are not likely to accede to UNSCRs after Wednesday anyway, it now seems that the only real way the TRR deal can be done is as part of a comprehensive nuclear settlement. So far, Iran has steadfastly refused to negotiate over that – it has not been the US demanding an end to enrichment as a precondition (that was Bush), it has been Iran saying their programme is non-negotiable. That is the conundrum – the last UNSCR was passed 2 years ago. Iran has defied it AND refused to negotiate over it ever since. So what can one do about it?
The latest sanction draft:
http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/unsc_blue_iran_resolution.pdf
Vote on Wednesday?
The Israeli opposition to such an inquiry is there to suggest that the Israelis have much to hide.
The Jewish State is beyond the law. It doesn’t follow any recognised universal value system either.
In recent years Israel flattened Lebanon (2006) and left more than 3000 civilians dead, it managed to shell an UNRWA shelter with white phosphorus (2009) and left Gaza with 1500 fatalities most of them women, children and elders, earlier this year it assassinated in Dubai using forged foreign passports, last week we saw the Kosher navy slaughter peace activists in international waters.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/jewish-ideology-and-world-peace-by-gilad-atzmon.html#entry7889017
Mark Glenn has written an excellent column “Killing the Messenger Before He Arrives”, explaining why the Zionist controlled governments are affraid of Dr. Ahmadinejad:
“Those who shrug off this latest talk of kidnapping as just that of a gangster nation engaging in gangster talk have good grounds to say so to a certain degree. After all, kidnapping is one of the ‘can’t do withouts’ in the business of organized crime, and it is no conspiracy theory that Israel has become something of a headquarters to mob interests where drugs, illegal arms, forced prostitution, human trafficking, extortion and money laundering are as much a part of the daily grind as they were during the days of Al Capone’s Chicago.”
“In this case however, a former high-ranking Mossad chief and the individual responsible for the infamous capture of Eichmann making such a statement must be looked at within the context of an iceberg where much more is unseen than seen. Moreover, it should be assumed it is neither typical Zionist rhetoric poking its ugly head out of Israel’s legendary sea of paranoia nor her seeming organic addiction to narcissistic behavior. No, the smart money says the timing of these latest developments is by no means accidental.”
“Needless to say, Israel (who desperately needs this war against Judea’s ancient enemies in Persia to hold together what is an otherwise organically-fractured society) is no doubt in panic mode. The longer this modern-day re-enactment of the slaughter of 75,000 innocent Persian citizens as recounted in the book of Esther is delayed, the less likely it is to take place, to say nothing of the diminishing chances of its overall success. As former Dimona nuclear technician-turned peace apostle Mordechai Vanunu testified to AFP recently, Israel must have war ‘every ten years or so’ for her survival. For the Jewish state, war is like a drug to any addict, and the longer she goes without her ‘fix’ the more desperate and irrational she becomes. Considering what took place in August with Georgia’s crushing defeat by Russia and the fact that more than likely Israel–up to her eyeballs in arming and training Georgia–planned on “tying Russia up” with a drawn-out military campaign that would prevent any interference with an attack on Iran, Israel is getting desperate, and this latest threat to kidnap the leader of a sovereign state is proof of it.”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/why-they-hate-him/
LIZ
Re: shahram Amiri
I have seen the footage on press TV.
Iranian scholar confirms abduction.
The Iranian scholar who went missing last year while on pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia has confirmed his abduction by the US in a video message.
Shahram Amriri, a researcher at Iran’s University of Malek Ashtar, insisted in the message, released on Monday, that he was kidnapped by US agents en route to Mecca in June 2009.
Amiri stated that his abduction was intended to mount political pressure on the Iranian government.
The Iranian scholar pleaded attention to his case.
When news broke of Amiri’s disappearance last year, Iranian officials claimed the US was involved in the incident. Washington, however, denied any involvement in Amiri’s disappearance or knowledge of his whereabouts.
The Saudi government also claimed unawareness about the fate of the missing Iranian scholar.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=129439§ionid=351020101
Our Enemies, the Israelis
When will we wake up to the threat?
Again and again Israel has outraged the world, and even many of its most dedicated supporters, by its actions:
multiple invasions of Lebanon, “incursions” into Gaza and the West Bank, the ever-expanding settlements, the vicious racism and tribalism that characterizes the present ultra-rightist government of Benjamin Netanyahu, which includes the openly racist and fascist party of the thuggish Avigdor Lieberman – the list of Israel’s sins is a long one, and that’s going back but a few years.
Even when the Israelis blew up a US Navy ship, the USS Liberty, a military reconnaissance vessel that was monitoring Israeli troops movements prior to the Six Day War, Washington went along – in public – with Tel Aviv’s fairy tale claiming it was an “accident.”
This disgrace is repeated, today, as the beaten and battered Americans who lived to tell the tale of what happened aboard the flotilla return to bear witness to Israeli brutality. An American citizen is killed, and Washington looks the other way. The ghost of Rachel Corrie is not surprised. Nor am I. Because the Israelis, after all, are our enemies.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25641.htm
{Once Iran falls to internal trouble or to foreign invasion China will lose it’s hold in the Middle East and it cant instantly befriend Saudi Arabia or the UAE like it could to Iran.}
Thank you Ahmed.
That’s why China never will be a world power because THEY ARE TOO TIMID and conservative to play it ’save’ like a fool. Timid Chian and racist Russia are comfortable with the status quo and are content with their PETTY ROLE in the ‘new world order’. They are willing to be at the service of the war criminals and carry out the order of keeping Iran weak and signing into zionist war plan after nothing left to bring a sanction against it. Then, like Iraq, we will have a war and STUPID CHINA AND RACIST RUSSIA will watch like a fool. They are happy to be left along by giving what the zionists want so China can ‘grow’ and be able to produce MORE GARBAGE to bring to the market. They are not able to understand that this policy of ‘giving little by little’ to satisfy the war ctriminals in Washington is not a good way to secure their ‘growth’ and sooner than later they will come after them them. Timid and foolish people never become anything but servants of the war criminals. Shame on you all. Boycott China and Russia
China is not stupid, they know that Iran will be good with them ONLY if they dont make Iran’s leadership look horrible to to the Iranian public. Setting sanctions will weaken the IRI’s control over some people and strengthen their control over others. It will be a rallying point and diving point for Iranians. Some will see it as injustice against Iran and some as the proof that Iran can not last with the standing of the current government.
Russia has already lost Iran, this can be seen with the attacks by Iranian and Russian officials in the past few weeks. China will lead to the same road. While China may not allow Iran to “bully” it or force it China does know that not standing by Iran and letting Iran become completely isolated will lead to war. War is the last thing China’s economy can handle. Not only will petroleum exports from Iran stop but so will those from Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, the UAE and all the capacity from Eastern Saudi Arabia not shipped through the east-west pipeline to the Red Sea.
In my opinion this is a mistake by China. China should not care about US arm’s sales to Taiwan. Taiwan will be taken over not by war but by public desire on both sides of the straits. Once Iran falls to internal trouble or to foreign invasion China will lose it’s hold in the Middle East and it cant instantly befriend Saudi Arabia or the UAE like it could to Iran.
Since we’re on China again, those of you who haven’t yet read the Leverett’s monograph on China ought to consider it. Don’t let “monograph” scare you off – there’s nothing quite so fun a curling up in bed with a good monograph to read.
http://www.sais-jhu.edu/centers/reischauer/moving_slightly_closer.pdf
James,
“Is the US therefor saying that the rights of a signatory party under the NPT do not obtain, if that party is not in the good graces of the US or Israel?”
I don’t think the US government is saying anything at all on behalf of Israel, which can speak for itself. But that’s exactly what the US government is saying for itself. Whether the US government thinks it (or the UNSC) has the right to say that, or knows it doesn’t have that right but is saying it anyway – that I don’t know. But either way, that’s what the US government is saying.
Eric,
Is the US therefor saying that the rights of a signatory party under the NPT do not obtain, if that party is not in the good graces of the US or Israel? Even though Israel itself is not a signatory?
Alan,
Cyrus wrote:
“Jesus it is far too late in the game to pretend that the US wants Iran to simply temporarily “suspend” enrichment, Alan.”
Hard to disagree with that, Alan.
Flynt and Hillary wrote:
“From Beijing’s perspective, [using its veto to delay a vote on new UNSC sanctions] would risk “liberating” Washington to deal with the Iranian nuclear problem outside of the Security Council, and could damage important equities in the U.S.-China bilateral relationship as well.”
Incidentally, this sentence states yet another reason why it’s not worth the effort to establish that the UNSC has no authority whatsoever to enforce an NPT/Safeguards Agreement dispute, regardless of whether the “Iran file” has been “referred” by the IAEA to the UNSC, nor any authority to direct the IAEA to take any action whatsoever on any subject. The UNSC indisputably lacks such authority, but presenting the complicated arguments to show that probably will have only one of two results, each making the effort pointless (at least for now):
1. The US and the UNSC might simply reject the argument, compelling or not. (99% of this).
2. If the US and the UNSC accepted the argument, this question would immediately pop into the US government’s head:
“If the US has no ability to affect Iran’s nuclear behavior through the UNSC, and there’s not much the IAEA on its own can do to Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, how CAN we affect Iran’s nuclear behavior?”
I have a pretty good idea how many in the US would recommend that question be answered. Establishing the absence of UNSC authority and IAEA practical power may be just what such people would like to see happen. Given that risk, it’s probably better that the US continue to believe the UNSC has authority to adopt resolutions punishing Iran for real or alleged NPT/Safeguards Agreement violations, even though the UNSC has no authority whatsoever with respect to the NPT, Iran’s Safeguards Agreement or the IAEA.
Alan – thanks for that link to Al Ahram.
So according to Walberg – Russias sopport for these sanctions means it can deliver S300 to Iran….hmmm…to be honest – I heard a lot about the S300 been delivered…then its been delayed…and so on…I will just wait and see what happens by October…
Kooshy – yes its good that Iran has already started the pipeline work, it shows the Russians that Iran means business, and also in terms of energy security its prudent for Turkey to diversify the supply of gas away from the Russians…look at what they did to Turkmenistan, when the price of gas fell last year..
The sooner policy makers accept that Iran has a right to have the “Japan” optin, as said by Arnold Evans – the better it will be for the whole region.
BTW Arnold Evans – how comes you havent posted anything on ACW…????
At the moment its full of “impose sanctions on Iran” “EXPERTS”..???
I dont know if you all read but I read on thegulfblog.com website earlier this year that Qatar and Iran have joined to launch telecommunication satelites using Iran’s space rockets from Semnan..this is to break the stranglehold the Saudis and Egyptians have on restricting satelite coverage by media from both Iran (al alam) and Qatar
(al jazeera).
You kind of miss the point Arnold. The Russians no doubt still want the S300s as leverage over Iran and/or the US, but the US has withdrawn, apparently, their obstruction to Iran getting them. Which is quite interesting, considering Israeli subs supposedly in or near the Persian Gulf.
The Russians and Chinese might water down demands over sanctions, but they don’t appear to be much interested in watering down demands over suspension of enrichment, do they? They have supported every UNSCR calling for it, including this one.
The US may or may not be able to stack the IAEA BOG, but they can’t stack the Security Council. If the US does want zero enrichment, they can’t pull it off by themselves.
By now this is far from just accepting Iran’s right to enrichment; it’s now about accepting everyone’s right to enrichment including Turkey and El Salvador’s, between the two administrations US has clearly played a bad hand from the get go. As the owners of this site have continuously noted there are no significant policy differences between the current administration and the previous one. True the tactics for implementation of the policies are changed but core of the previous administration’s policy has remained untouched. Not only in Iran but in the rest of Muslim countries if you glens thorough the local commentaries you will note that Mr. Obama has hopelessly managed to change the audacity of hope to the audacity of confrontation.
Alan,
You’re not really saying either that Obama is following Russia and China’s lead on this suspension demand or that the United States, Russia and China are equally adamant about it, are you?
There have been a whole lot of false alarms about the S-300s and Bushehr though, I’ll believe them when I see them installed and operational.
Either way, the idea that the United States does not have as its objective zero enrichment is absolutely untenable the way things are looking. Nothing the unnamed officials said in their briefing contradicts that, there’s nothing they said that three Bush officials would not have said, and they specifically took objection to the Turkey, Brazil, Iran declaration that says that Iran has the right to enrich.
Jesus it is far too late in the game to pretend that the US wants Iran to simply temporarily “suspend” enrichment, Alan.
It’s not just the US demanding a suspension. It’s China and Russia too. I don’t think you can say at this point Obama has been persuaded by anybody of anything.
This is interesting though. Al-Ahram are saying that, apparently, in the effort to get Russia on the sanctions bandwagon, the US has said it won’t oppose the Russian supply of the S300 system to Iran, and will lift sanctions on the Russian companies involved in nuclear technology exchange.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2010/1001/re93.htm
irshad
Is relative to note, that this was more than just an announcement or intend for this new pipeline construction, yesterday I saw on IRIB that the construction has actually started and they are laying pipes in the trenches, this clip was shown prior to president Ahmadinijad’s trip to Turkey today where he will meet with PM Putin, immediately after president is going to china.
irshad,
Iran has been trying to provide export facilities for gas from Turkmenistan, which of course would compete with alternate routes the Russians want to control.
Turkey wants to increase its imports of Iranian gas, and to lower its imports of Russian gas. (Assuming price factor makes sense) The US should be supportive of this effort of Turkey’s.
kooshy,
I regret the loss of Helen Thomas, as you do.
irshad,
I too wish Obama’s people would sit down with some of the Iranians and “thrash things out” as you say. Obama does have his hands full, coping with the pervasive influence of the Israel lobby.
I think it is very much in the best interests of Iran, the Middle East, and China of course, for China to continue to invest in Iranian oil. The sanctions already imposed hurt companies like Boeing, and Siemens, but China has been able to enter a market formerly a field of great promise to Germany and Italy. The Iranians would prefer European or US oil and gas facilities, but “the west” is forcing them to accept the Chinese substitutes (regarded as of lower quality).
Kooshy,
thank you for that link.
Its about time the Iranians flexed their muscle (not in the military sense) to the Russians, to show to them that Iran can be an hindrance to whatever plans they may have.
The reported building of this pipeline, closer relations with Georgia – whose president invited Irans president to visit later this year, the expulsion of Russian pilots, the offer of mediation between Azerbaijan and Armenia, forging closer links with Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, all should send a message to Moscow – that Russia may not be Iran’s ally, but neither is Iran, Russia’s ally. They both are competitors in central asia, the caucasus region, etc.
And should the Russians decide to get more in line with USA, then I am sure, the issue of human right abuse of Muslims in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingusehtia will be popping up in the Iranian media – leading to secretly funding/arming sucessionist groups in those republics. This will make Russia realise that Iran as a friend is better then as a foe. But all thys is hyperbole and may not even happen….just thinking out loud folks..
I just hope – that Iran and USA can sit down and thrash out their differences – the only thing that is needed, is how can the Obama administration outfox the “Lobby” in Washington…good luck Obama & co. My prayers are with you on that (thats if you are serious about what you said in Cairo)
Helen Thomas RETIRING Effective Immediately
“Helen Thomas, the 89-year-old veteran White House correspondent, will retire effective immediately in the wake of her offensive comments on Israel.”
“The White House Monday called Thomas’ remarks “offensive and reprehensible.”
The freedom of speech is astonishing in this United States, was white house suppose to take position on her comments?
Kooshy:
That is an interesting question regarding the US military as a factor in US decision making regarding Iran.
My guess is that the US military was behind the thaw between Iran and the US late in the Bush administration, overruling Cheney and the pro-Israel factions that wanted increased or at least sustained hostility. This thaw was represented by Iran/US cooperation in Iraq and the 2007 NIE.
The US military is probably the least Zionist institution in the US government – which does not make it anti-Zionist, but much less than the State Department, to say nothing of the US Congress which is probably the most.
Overall, I’ll say that other than Israel, Iran achieving a Japan option would be no more threatening to the US than Japan or Brazil achieving it. The US military, except in that it understands that it can be tasked with defending Israel, has no strong stake in preventing Iran from reaching Switzerland’s status.
Has anyone seen the footage of Shahram Amiri on Iranian TV? He spoke through webcam from the US and said he was kidnapped.
On the second thought,
Could this also be a reaction to China’s position on new sanctions, since some of the gas will end up going to the west instead of the east?
An interesting development, if this is Iran’s answer to Russia’s agreement on new sanctions?
Iran Building First Gas Pipeline to Europe, State TV Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aNsFMYAGIzWM
An interesting development, if this is Iran’s answer to Russia’s agreement on new sanctions?
Iran Building First Gas Pipeline to Europe, State TV Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aNsFMYAGIzWM
Both China and Russia are trying not to board the US neocon train because their strategic and energy interests are very much tied to Iran. While Tehran is supporting resistance groups in occupied Palestine, it’s silent over the plight of Muslims struggling against China and Russia which are occupying several traditional Muslim lands. Both Russia and China don’t want to see one of their neighbors to support the resistance movements against them.
Russia is constructing nuclear plants in Iran – not because Russians love Iranian but because they need cash and Iran being being out of US influence – can provide the badly needed foreign currency. China, on the other hand is starving for new source of energy supplies for its expanding industrial sector.
However, both China and Russia would not like to see an Islamic nuclear country in the region. Both of them never raised an objection to Israeli or Indian being in possesion of nuclear bombs.
Last year Tehran signed a contract worth US$6.9 billion with China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) and Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry (ZPMC) for development, engineering and construction of offshore gas field in South Pars. This gas field alone is estimated to have reserves of about 14 trillion cubic meters of gas or 8% of world’s gas reserves.
The Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) and US-based Energy Information Administration (EIA) have predicted that by 2030, the natural gas will replace oil as the main energy source of choice for the industrial and public needs. This was one of the reasons the Bush administration used 9/11 to implement a preplaned agenda to occupy Afghanistan to reach the Caspian Sea oil and gas reserves. The plan was to run a pipeline network from Turkmenistan (whose oil fields are owned by an Israeli billionaire) through Afghanistan and ending at Balochistani port of Gwadar (Pakistan) from where it was to be shipped to Israeli refinery at Haifa through tankers.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/islamic-republics-natural-gas-bonanza/
Arnold
I very much agree with your position with regards to Iran’s enrichment rights, but I believe there are more reasons than just Israel alone for current US position.
As I have wrote before I wonder why even the opposing view analyst are seldom willing to comment on US strategic balance of power vies-a-vie Iran’s enrichment.
“Obama has been persuaded, maybe by Samore, maybe by Netanyahu, maybe by Clinton, who knows, but Obama has been persuaded to attempt to get Iran to zero enrichment. A suspension demand only makes sense in the context of an attempt to get zero enrichment.”
I would think to add ………more likely be by US Military, who has the final say on all matters of sate security and maintaining US’s regional balance of power.
Bush’s position was that Iran must suspend enrichment for the duration of talks. That allowed Condoleeza Rice to say it wasn’t necessarily permanent. She and the US non-proliferation community were saying during the Bush administration that it was not technically a demand for a permanent cessation of enrichment.
Of course, talks only end if the US agrees, so a suspension for the duration of talks effectively means Iran ending enrichment for as long as the US wants. Maybe if the US gets a new Shah installed, the suspension could end.
Obama’s position is not different. The suspension would continue until the Board of Governors votes that Iran is in compliance and then the UNSC votes that the conditions have been met.
We’re talking about the exact same position. The exact same lawyer-type weaseling around the basic fact that the US is using these supposed compliance issues as a pretext to accomplish a strategic goal of maintaining Israel’s regional monopoly on nuclear capability.
This strategic goal, that has not been abandoned by the Obama administration, is both unreasonable by the terms of the NPT and not accomplishable. If the US really gets a sanctions resolution, it will hurt the US position in Afghanistan more than it advances the cause of preventing Iran from attaining a Japan option.
Obama has been persuaded, maybe by Samore, maybe by Netanyahu, maybe by Clinton, who knows, but Obama has been persuaded to attempt to get Iran to zero enrichment. A suspension demand only makes sense in the context of an attempt to get zero enrichment. If the issue is questions about the alleged studies, they could be answered just as quickly as Iran enriches as they could with a suspension.
Not only does the suspension demand not assist in answering the remaining alleged studies questions, but the suspension demand is literally the reason Iran stopped implementing and will not restart implementing the Additional Protocols.
On the ongoing question over the US position on enrichment, this may be useful. It says the “position” is that it should be suspended until compliance (Senior Administration Official 1,opening remarks). Quite a lot of other info too.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/05/142375.htm
On the post at hand, it would not be unreasonable to assume the Iranians probably need the loans more than the Chinese need to lend it to them. As with most things between the two really.
Regarding the Russians, the quote from Sergei Prikhodko, when he dismissed Ahmadinejad’s criticism as “political demagoguery”, was: “Any unpredictability, any political extremism, lack of transparency or inconsistency in taking decisions that affect and concern the entire world community is unacceptable for us.”
Mr Ahmadinejad appears to have ensured that particular defection; perhaps they got him to shut up before he could start on the Chinese.
I notice now that a Mr Ali Shirazi is offering an Iranian escort to Gaza aid flotillas. Wouldn’t it be nice if the US and Iran could get into a squabble over who could help Gaza the most?
I don’t know why are Leveretts trying to dilute the destructive roles of **CHINA** AND* *RUSSIA** against the interest of Iran and Iranian people?
China and Russia are very happy with the status quo since due to *STUPIDITY* of American policy which is influenced by the Zionist policy, a fifth column, China and Russia are able to gain many concessions from the Zionist slaves, black and white, in Washington against the *interest* of American people. For the last 30 years this *STUPID* policy against Iran has proven nothing but loss for both Iran and the United States but gain for ISRAEL, CHINA, RUSSIA, INDIA and other states. Iranian people never forget the knife that these countries put on Iranian back, China, Russia and even India’ to keep Iran WEAK.
China as well as Russia are looking for nothing but their INTEREST and are willing to sacrifice millions of Iranians, that have done, and gain concession after concession from the stupid ‘leaders’ who have brought to power by a fifth column, Zionist lobby, black and white, to prove that a apartheid state is AN ASSET to the United States where we have seen and continue to see that Israel is nothing BUT BURDEN AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES AND IS GOOD FOR THE ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES, RUSSIA AND CHINA WHO HAVE GAINED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES POLICY DIRECTED BY THE ENEMY OF HUMANITY, THE ZIONISTS FIFTH COLUMN.
Iranians are not stupid to accept Chinese and Russian’s policy which is nothing but keeping Iran WEAK. The world community MUST Be Boycotting Chinese goods. CHINA HAS DONE NOTHING FOR THE WORLD EXCEPT POURING ITS GARGAGE INTO WORLD MARKET INCLUDING IRANIAN MARKET AND COLLECT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN RETURN AND THEN TURNS AND VOTE AGAINST IRANIAN *LEGAL ENRICHMENT* PROGRAM WITH US AND RUSSIA, a racist state, AGAINST IRAN, WHO HAVE SUPPORTED PALESTINE FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS WHILE RUSSIA AND CHINA HAVE SUPPORTED THIS APARTHIED STATE AND HAVE CLOSE RELATIONS WITH IT AGAINST THE INTEREST OF PALESTINIAN PEOPLE.
CAN WE CALL THE UNITED STATES’ POLICY ANYTHING OTHER THAN * S T U P I D I T Y*?
The world cannot forget the massacre of Muslims by racist Chinese in one of the provinces, and massacre of Chechen by racist Russian where went unnoticed by the zionist media. These countries vote yes with the United States so they can KILL Muslims with impunity. People of the world must hold these racist and terrorist states, China and Russia, responsible and demand not to vote Yes for the sanction because this is IRAQ SCRIPT which leads to nothing but a war against Iran. Why China and Russia are siding with this racist policy which is beneficial to an apartheid Israel? The world will hold you responsible for your CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. If you are against enrichment, then China and Russian, Israel and the United states MUST STOP THEIR OWN ENRICHMENT PROGRAM AT ONCE AND DESTROY ALL THEIR WMD OTHERWISE THEY MUST *SHUT UP* AND GET LOST. DOWN WITH IMPOSTERS SUCH AS CHINA AND RUSSSIA.
Iran should not sent the LUE to Turkey before UN vote to see if China vote yes to sanction against Iranian children. Iran has announced that if they bring more sanction against Iran, the Iranian government will not go through the deal. The reason Chinese racist are delaying the vote, is that they want to steal the LUE before voting yes. Iran should not give more chances to these racist countries who want a WEAK IRAN while they are sitting on thousands of nuclear bombs.
THEY MUST VOTE **NO** OTHERWISE THEY MUST FACE THE CONSEQUENCES, MEANING THE WHOLE WORLD ARE GOING TO BE AGINST THE IMPOSTERS AND BOYCOTT RUSSIAN AND CHINESE GOODS. They will be remembered as war criminals if they vote yes to more sanction against Iranian children.
Thanks for the article link, Kooshy.
Eric, Arnold this article may interest your discussions
The IAEA: From UN Nuclear Watchdog to US Lapdog
by Finian Cunningham
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19579
A new sanctions resolution would be such a bad move for the United States, that until it passes, I don’t expect to see one.
China is a secondary story.
If a sanctions resolution is brought, the ball will be in Iran’s court to react. Canceling the TRR deal seems to me less likely than increasing its rate of LEU enrichment and doing less to stop the flow of weapons into Iraq and Afghanistan.