US efforts to engage Iran appear to be over
James Forsyth 8:44pm
New York
The reaction of the Obama administration to the discovery of a secret, underground Iranian nuclear plant strongly suggests, as the Washington Post points out, that the administration has given up on engagement. Attempts to engage with the Iranian regime were always likely to be futile. But Washington had to show the international community, and the American public, that it had tried. The criticism you can make of the administration is that its effort took too long, nine months when the Iranian nuclear clock might have as little as 18 months left on it.
Now, the focus turns to sanctions. Can the UN pass sanctions that block gasoline imports, a vital first step in increasing the pressure on the regime? Russia appears to be taking a tougher line on Iran. But China still sounds as if it is opposed, and Chinese companies are now filling the gap left by other companies pulling out of exporting gas to Iran.
The problem with the UN when it comes to issues like Iran is that the UN was, reasonably enough given the world situation in 1945, designed to slow things down and to make action hard. Agreement had to be reached between the major powers before anything could be done. But in the modern world, we need an institution that is more pro-active if we are to mantain international security. If the UN is unable to impose sanctions that are tough enough to make the Iranian regime rethink its nuclear ambitions, then the likelihood of Israel—or possibly a Western coalition—dealing with the threat on their own through force will, understandably, increase.
Previous
Feste
September 25th, 2009 10:16pm Report this commentHaving stolen the election, Iran's current government has no legitimate standing. Let's hope someone out there has a decapitation strategy. Otherwise it's World War Three.
kein
September 25th, 2009 10:31pm Report this commenti understand your concern after all these weapons are pointed this way,however how can israel unofficially have more nuclear weapons than the uk and pakistan and india have them but iran can't .discuss..?
Jeremy
September 25th, 2009 10:42pm Report this commentIf the Iranians have not been honest about their nuclear assets whilst engaged in negotiations with the Americans, then that does indeed put a different slant and also, perhaps, a different temper upon things.
How will this impact upon our continued presence in Afghanistan?
For one brief, shining moment I thought the president might have been moving towards pulling us out. But now?
Personally, I think we should still get out of Afghanistan and concentrate our efforts - if need be - upon Iran instead. Why? Because a nuclear-armed Iran would quite clearly be the bigger and more significant of the two "threats". And also because I think that in Afghanistan we are draining away blood, treasure, will and resources in a futile war - resources that we might very well need, vis-a-vis Iran, later on.
Robert Eve
September 25th, 2009 10:58pm Report this commentI am quite sure Israel will sort Iran out.
I don't think any other country has the balls.
Hysteria
September 26th, 2009 3:19am Report this commentKein - are you really interested in a debate or are your views locked in an anti-israel mind set? Are you seriously trying to equte the governments of Iran and Israel and assign some moral equivalency?
porkbelly
September 26th, 2009 5:06am Report this commentAnd if Israel fails? What then?
Elf
September 26th, 2009 8:33am Report this commentSo Israel is to do the West's dirty work. Hmmm... Suez ring any bells? That wasn't exactly a success was it?
John Moss
September 26th, 2009 9:36am Report this commentIf that idiot Jack Straw had not taken the military option off the table at the beginning, then we might have had the big stick on show while we were talking softly.
Sadly, Ahmedinejhad has always been secure in the knowledge that Britain would veto military action so was able to plough on.
Our hopes rest on a clear message from a Conservative Government after the next election that force will be used if necessary to destroy these plants before they can produce weapons grade material.
Geoff M
September 26th, 2009 10:17am Report this comment"how can israel unofficially have more nuclear weapons than the uk and pakistan and india have them but iran can't?"
Because Iran is hostile.
This isn't about allowing every nation on Earth to have nuclear weapons just because some nations already have them.
I should have thought that much was self-evident.
Ian C
September 26th, 2009 10:46am Report this commentKein
Israel is not a signatory to the non-proliferation Treaty. Iran is. End of issue.
Ian C
September 26th, 2009 10:53am Report this commentWhat is really interetsing about this is that Obama, who made the 'nuclear' speech at the UN in mid-week, was forced to do this so soon after - at Pittsburgh.
What changed in the meanwhile. There is alot more going on here than meets the eye - waht with Netanyahu's secret visit to Moscow 10 days ago.(For those who have not read it read his speech to the UN. It was rather more to the Iranian point than anyone else.)
No, USA and the EU3 have been caught out here and they had no choice, at last, but to 'last chance' saloon the message this week. Not a moment before time but there can be little doubt that the western security services have been caught napping - again.
Frank P
September 26th, 2009 2:25pm Report this comment"It's a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice cream and a quart of dog shit and mix 'em together, the result will taste more like the latter than the former. That's the problem with the U.N."
Mark Steyn - on last week's UN circus.
Wonderful! Read it all:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/president-obama-nations-2581600-world-state
Heh, heh, heh!
Hysteria
September 26th, 2009 9:46pm Report this commentFrank P - just read the Steyn piece - brilliant as ever and with an excellent sting in the tial.
Derek
September 27th, 2009 9:06am Report this commentI wonder if I am the only person who is not sanguine contemplating an Iranian nuclear industry confined to the production of nuclear energy, if that country can be forced to abandon its nuclear weapons programme. That would imply an inexhaustible supply of material for dirty bombs, would it not? Let's hope that some homework on the effect of exploding such bombs in the centre of cities is given to president Candide of the USA early enough in his course on the real world for him to wake up and put a coalition of the willing together to do something about the Mullah problem other than "jaw-jaw".
Minnie Ovens
September 27th, 2009 12:14pm Report this commentkein
September 25th, 2009 10:31pm
Suggest you join the UN. You can then discuss the issue to your heart's content.
Make certain you know where the bomb shelters are.
Back to top