Thoughts On Iran And Her Nuclear Program
Iran now says that if the nuclear issue is referred to the U.N., it will not be able to consider Russia's proposal. You know, the one that would have allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium on Russian soil. The Russian proposal has always seemed like a delay tactic to me.
China's foreign minister, Li Zhaoxing, had this to say on the matter, "China is very concerned about the Iranian nuclear issue."
Right. China and Russia are now supposedly concerned about Iran's nuclear program; that's rich. They weren't concerned when they were selling Iran all of the necessary components for its ballistic missiles program, were they? And how, exactly, is Iran going to deliver said nuclear warheads should she produce them?
As John Negroponte warned yesterday in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, "the danger that it will acquire a nuclear weapon and the ability to integrate it with ballistic missiles Iran already possesses is a reason for immediate concern." Again, China and Russia are to blame for Iran acquiring that ballistic missile technology in the first place. (And, of course, Russia has played a big role in Iran's supposedly "civilian" nuclear program.)
I realize that Russia and China now support a referral to the Security Council, but you have to wonder how committed they are to actually doing anything about Iran's program. As we have seen in the past with Iraq, the Security Council can pass resolution after resolution, have them ignored, and Russia and China will sit on their hands - for a variety of economic and political reasons.
In other news, Iran has sent a letter to the IAEA saying that if the matter is referred to the U.N., then it will end all cooperation on inspections. Iran's nuke negotiator, Ali Larijani, wrote that Iran "would have no other choice but to suspend all the voluntary measures and extra cooperation with the agency. In that case, the agency's monitoring would extensively be limited and all the peaceful nuclear activities being under voluntary suspension would be resumed without any restriction."
The New York Times has posted the full text of the letter here.
As for the draft resolution sponsored by the EU3 (Britain, France and Germany) that would allow the Security Council to (hypothetically) take action against Iran, it is interesting to note who is opposed to it: Syria, Venezuela and Cuba.
Let's see, that's Iran's long time terror partner (Syria) and the axis of subversion causing so many problems in this hemisphere (Venezuela and Cuba).
Keep your eye out for more on Iran's relationship with the axis of subversion. I have written about a several times now and am going to keep writing about. Most recently, I noted here that Iran is taking a very activist approach to Latin America. The relationship has the potential to cause big problems in this hemisphere in the future.
China's foreign minister, Li Zhaoxing, had this to say on the matter, "China is very concerned about the Iranian nuclear issue."
Right. China and Russia are now supposedly concerned about Iran's nuclear program; that's rich. They weren't concerned when they were selling Iran all of the necessary components for its ballistic missiles program, were they? And how, exactly, is Iran going to deliver said nuclear warheads should she produce them?
As John Negroponte warned yesterday in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, "the danger that it will acquire a nuclear weapon and the ability to integrate it with ballistic missiles Iran already possesses is a reason for immediate concern." Again, China and Russia are to blame for Iran acquiring that ballistic missile technology in the first place. (And, of course, Russia has played a big role in Iran's supposedly "civilian" nuclear program.)
I realize that Russia and China now support a referral to the Security Council, but you have to wonder how committed they are to actually doing anything about Iran's program. As we have seen in the past with Iraq, the Security Council can pass resolution after resolution, have them ignored, and Russia and China will sit on their hands - for a variety of economic and political reasons.
In other news, Iran has sent a letter to the IAEA saying that if the matter is referred to the U.N., then it will end all cooperation on inspections. Iran's nuke negotiator, Ali Larijani, wrote that Iran "would have no other choice but to suspend all the voluntary measures and extra cooperation with the agency. In that case, the agency's monitoring would extensively be limited and all the peaceful nuclear activities being under voluntary suspension would be resumed without any restriction."
The New York Times has posted the full text of the letter here.
As for the draft resolution sponsored by the EU3 (Britain, France and Germany) that would allow the Security Council to (hypothetically) take action against Iran, it is interesting to note who is opposed to it: Syria, Venezuela and Cuba.
Let's see, that's Iran's long time terror partner (Syria) and the axis of subversion causing so many problems in this hemisphere (Venezuela and Cuba).
Keep your eye out for more on Iran's relationship with the axis of subversion. I have written about a several times now and am going to keep writing about. Most recently, I noted here that Iran is taking a very activist approach to Latin America. The relationship has the potential to cause big problems in this hemisphere in the future.
posted by Thomas Joscelyn at 10:01 AM
<< Home