The UN Security Council continues its game of "red light, green light";
But it isn't clear who clearly loses here besides the United States. Leaning on a veto threat until the very last, the Russians shielded the top Iranians who run the nuclear program from a travel ban — a manged to save their light-water reactor at Bushehr. The resolution bans transfers of enrichment and reprocessing equipment, which would be helpful if Iran wasn't already technologically self-sufficient in both. (It is already enriching uranium, and has laid all the groundwork for a plutonium-reprocessing capability). Further economic sanctions (under Article 41) are darkly hinted at.Underlying all of this is the great unanswered question of the Iraq War's Resolution 1441: Does the U.S. need Council permission to use force? For the U.S., the key issue is how to enforce Iran's obligations. For the Europeans, the key issue is how to keep the U.S. from enforcing those obligations itself. The resolution text leaves the point ambiguous and allows all sides to claim authority for their position—just like Resolution 1441—and that is bad for the United States, which is giving the impression that it has given up on any threat to use force.
So far, the Europeans have used the Security Council as a brilliant device for containing the United States. But what happened to containing Iran? The further economic sanctions hinted at open up another interval of many months during which the Iranians know they can plow full steam ahead with no consequences. This resolution was little more than a permit for Iran to Ahmadinejad to throw the big "coming out" party he plans for February, when Iran is set to declare itself a nuclear state.
Here is a half serious, half cynical suggestion...just because I am tired of all of these jokers.
The US should just pull back, state that it is pulling back and will no longer worry about the security of Europe, only the UK.
This happened by default under Carter, who was so weak on this stuff. The Euros got so worried they BEGGED the US back in.
If Iran gets a nuke who do they threaten, Russia, Europe and the Arab states....The Israeli's have nuclear missles on subs so they are perfectly safe under MAD.
Let the Euro's deal with their own problems, including Bosnia. trust me the arab world will also come screaming back for US intervention because they wont like dealing with the French or the Russians. Save the money and the political capital, let the French and the Russians expend their money and blood on this.....it wont last long.
Posted by: Stephen at December 24, 2006 2:16 PMI dunno but at some point somebody is gonna have to take the 'toys' away from the little kids in the Middle East and North Korea. Even accidental nuclear events have the potential to do serious damage all the way around the world by way of a 'nuclear winter'. The food supply would be disrupted and people would suffer.
On the other hand the tree huggers would be happy with the cooling since we would stall the global warming catastrophe of Al Gore and friends.
Remember what happened to "So Damn Insane's" nuclear facilities?
Posted by: Bruce Randall at December 24, 2006 3:05 PMthe UN has a billion dollar refit/renovation/remodel on the do list.
perhaps now is the chance to terminate the lease and send the whole works to some friendlier more convenient locale like the middle of the namib desert ...
Posted by: bollocks at December 24, 2006 6:38 PMNeed anymore resaons why we should just get ourselves out of the UN and have nothing more to do with them?
Posted by: spurwing plover at December 24, 2006 11:14 PMI agree with Stephen on this one. The US had an isolationist foreign policy until WW2 and it thrived. The rest of the world doesn't appear to appreciate what the US does for it, so why bother. The Americans are capable of making there own borders secure (except the mexican one for some reason), without bothering with the rest of the world. Nuclear weapons are not high tech, "we" built the first ones the best part of a century ago, and the hard part - figuring out how they work - has been done. Its only a matter of time before the Iranians or who ever build one.
To Rockyt - a small nuclear war would not be that catastrophic, unless you were the target. There have been approx 2000 nuclear warheads detonated since the 1940's and no nuclear winter. What difference would a few dozen more make?
I'm not advocating starting a nuclear war, I just think that at some time the US is going to stop taking responsibility for the rest of the world, by loosing the ability or the inclination.
mbaron
Posted by: mbaron at December 25, 2006 10:22 AMI seriously doubt the United States has the desire or the spare capability to start another war right now and I don't doubt the Iranians know this.
Posted by: Jose at December 25, 2006 5:18 PM