Posted on 03/08/2006 5:35:06 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Bush administration said Wednesday it will not seek sanctions against Iran in the first stage of U.N. Security Council deliberations on the Iranian nuclear program. The State Department said it hopes the spotlight of global attention in the council will prompt Iran to change course.
While both Russia and China supported the referral of the Iranian issue to the Security Council, neither of the permanent council members has shown any enthusiasm for imposing U.N. sanctions against Tehran.
The United States, accordingly, is setting only a modest initial agenda as the Security Council nears its first consultations on the Iranian nuclear issue next week.
At a news briefing, State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack confirmed what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had indicated at a press appearance Tuesday that the United States is not going to seek sanctions as a first step.
Instead, the spokesman said, U.S. diplomats will focus their efforts at obtaining a so-called president's statement laying out exactly what the Security Council expects Iran to do.
He made clear the United States is not foreclosing a formal Security Council resolution, or sanctions, as options later in the process. But he suggested the Bush administration had already achieved a diplomatic advance in moving the issue from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the Security Council.
McCormack said it is hoped that the increased international scrutiny inherent in that move might prompt Iran to back away from what the United States believes is a secret nuclear weapons drive, and restore a suspension of uranium-enrichment activities:
"You've seen a gradual ratcheting up of the pressure on Iran," he said. "I think right now the Iranian regime finds itself in a very uncomfortable position. There's going to be a bright spotlight that shines on the behavior of the Iranian regime up in New York, starting next week. That is not a place where they want to find themselves. So this is absolutely part of our diplomatic strategy in working with other members of the international community."
The spokesman said the Security Council referral by the IAEA governing board was evidence of a shift in world sentiment against Iran, and that the level of trust in Iran's assertions that it is not in violation of its nuclear non-proliferation obligations has eroded to zero.
McCormack brushed aside an Iranian assertion Wednesday that it could inflict harm and pain on the United States to match any Security Council punishment that might be forthcoming.
He said the statement was part of a failing effort by Tehran to depict the nuclear case as a matter of between Iran and the United States, rather than what it is: an issue between Iran and the rest of the world.
At the United Nations in New York, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said imposing U.N. sanctions has been ineffective in recent history in solving crises and that the IAEA should remain in the lead on the Iran issue.
Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing appealed Tuesday for more negotiations and suggested that Security Council involvement was not needed.
Apparently this spotlight must so powerful as to cause pain---a new weapon perhaps, or merely empty rhetoric?
This is smart. Just like Iraq and UNSC Res. 1441. Get a clear (hopefully unanimous) statement regarding what Iran must do. Then, if and when Iran refuses to do it, move on to the issue of consequences. Given the unliklihood of China, Russia, or France getting on board with any real consequences, get from them what we can. Later the argument can be made "The civilized world has defined Iran's behavior as unacceptable. Now we will act within a Coalition of the Willing to enforce this judgement." Steady on.
Excellent logic, but I think Israel will knock out the Iranian reactors - this month. They stated they will (back in November).
If the Israelis light up the Iranians, I will be happy. But I think that the job is just too big for them. They simply do not have the resources to get it done. Iran is too far away across hostile airspace, there are too many target sites, and the sites are too well defended. I don't think any nation or group of nations can do this one without the United States. Further, I don't think that the Iranians have any intention of voluntarily stopping short of an offensive nuclear capability. So since both Pres. Bush and V.P. Cheney have said flatly that Iran will not be allowed to go nuclear, I think the ending to this one pretty much writes itself.
Yes, best scenario.
But I think that the job is just too big for them. They simply do not have the resources to get it done.
I'm curious as to how you arrive at this conclusion? I have no idea what Israel does or doesn't have militarly. I'd imagine Jane's has plenty on their military might?
...and the sites are too well defended.
Again, I'd like to inquire of you, how do you know this is the case please?
Further, I don't think that the Iranians have any intention of voluntarily stopping short of an offensive nuclear capability.
And this is exactly why Israel must knock out all of the Iranian nuclear sites-and soon. If one nuke tipped missile gets through to Israel, they are wiped out; and especially since the country is so small, and in addition, narrow.
And btw, do you know any folks here who might be knowledgable about my queries (any military buffs)?
bttt
My analysis is not based on any particular insider knowledge, though I have extensive education and experience in the aerospace field generally and a long-standing interest in the subject. There have been numerous recent articles about Iranian air defenses, just google those three words and you'll find them. Other articles have talked about the number of Iranian nuke sites, and the difficulty of pinpointing them all. The numbers I've seen recently range from dozens to scores. Again, google the four words - number Iranian nuclear facilities - and you'll get useful hits. As for the proximity issue, I just look at my globe. Syria and Iraq stand between Israel and Iran, and the maps I've seen of the Iranian nuke sites show them to be widely disbursed with many far from the part of Iran closest to Israel. This raises difficult issues of mid-air refueling, avoiding Syrian air defenses, etc. It's a tough problem for the Israelis. We have many advantages, qualitatively and quantitatively, starting with carrier-based aircraft, and sub or ship-launched cruise missiles,longer-ranged aircraft (e.g. the B-2), etc. This stuff is really hard. Our guys just make it look (kind of) easy. In fact, that's not true. It looks and is hard as hell, and our guys are amazingly good, it's just that you'll never see this described and explained in the MSM. Instead you get stories about how we're "running out of targets." Oh well.
Thank you very much for the information. I'll come back a bit later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.