My thinking too. Unless some emphasis starts getting placed on "other options."
My thinking too. Unless some emphasis starts getting placed on "other options."
What "other options" would the UN have up its sleeve? "Inspections", perhaps? And if they resist inspections, then... more deadlines?
Look at that statement again: "[T]he United States could urge that the IAEA board refer the matter to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions or other options."
We're going to "urge" Mohammed Baredi to "refer the matter" to the UN Security Council. Why? For the Security Council to either issue "possible" sanctions, or "other options". That would be the UN (Security Council) considering "other options."
The only "options" I see us taking is the "option" of "urging" the IAEA to ask the Security Council to take it under advisement.
This is the same nonsense that played out with Iraq. We make ourselves look weak and ineffectual by "threatening" to ask the UN to consider looking into it.
Yeah, that'll leave the mullahs shaking in their boots. Right.
I hate to throw a wet blanked on the celebrations, but let's not kid ourselves. This is Powelesque diplomosqueak. We're giving them a "deadline." If they don't meet our deadline, we'll ask one part of the UN to consider asking another part of the UN to consider doing something or other. It would be laughable if the stakes weren't so high.
We need Teddy Rooseveldt, and instead, we get Colin Powell. The mind boggles...