Posted on 08/25/2006 12:46:40 PM PDT by ImpBill
By Ron Popeski 2 hours, 25 minutes ago
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia rejected talk for now of sanctions against Iran and France warned on Friday against conflict with Tehran, raising doubts whether it will face swift penalties if nuclear work is not halted by an August 31 deadline.
Responding to an offer of economic incentives to stop enriching uranium, Iran hinted to six world powers on Tuesday it could rein in its program as a result of talks to implement the package -- but not as a precondition as they demand.
The reply seemed tailored to crack the brittle united front of four Western powers and Russia and China who agreed the U.N. deadline. The West sees Iran's nuclear drive as a looming threat to peace. Russia and China, key trade partners of Iran, do not.
"I know of no instances in world practice and previous experience in which sanctions have achieved their aim and proved effective," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told reporters during a trip to Russia's far east.
"Moreover, I believe that the question is not so serious at the moment for the U.N. Security Council or the group of six to consider any introduction of sanctions. Russia stands for further political and diplomatic efforts to settle the issue."
Ivanov is seen as close to President Vladimir Putin.
Washington has said the six powers will move quickly to adopt sanctions if Iran disregards the deadline. Britain, Germany and France have been less conclusive in public.
Russia and China, both trade partners of Iran, have been unwilling and could veto sanctions in the Council.
Underlining the confusion, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he expected new talks in days with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani "to get clarification (on Iran's response) and see how we can move the process forward."
Solana said Iran's reply, a document of more than 20 pages, contained "new elements" about which he would like to talk.
U.S., French and German leaders said Iran's 21-page response to the incentives offer was unsatisfactory because it did not specifically agree to stop purifying uranium. Iran says its nuclear ambitions are limited to power production.
Asked about Russia's rejection of sanctions for now, State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said there were several days before the U.N. deadline and a lot could happen.
"This is diplomacy. We are going to be working together in consultation with them (Russia). The group (P5+1) will come together and we will make some decisions," said Gallegos.
French President Jacques Chirac, speaking after a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Paris, said Iran's response was "ambiguous."
"For the moment, it (the Iranian response) is not satisfactory," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on RTL radio, but added it was important to avoid escalating conflict with Iran and the Muslim world.
NO "CONFRONTATION"
"The worst thing would be to escalate into a confrontation (between the West and) Iran on the one hand, and the Muslim world with Iran. That would be the clash of civilizations that France today is practically alone in trying to avoid," he said.
U.S. and British forces that overthrew Iraq's Saddam Hussein in 2003 are now mired in an Islamist insurgency. Israel recently waged an inconclusive war with Lebanon's Hizbollah guerrillas. Both conflicts are widely seen to have strengthened Iran.
British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said: "On Iran, I don't think I would expect very much imminently in the Council."
He told reporters in New York that the Council was awaiting a U.N. nuclear watchdog report due on August 31 that will certify whether Iran has stopped enrichment-related activity or not.
"Once we get that, we then need to discuss the way forward. But we need to give a measured consideration to what has been sent to us by Iran -- quite clearly something which is short of what the Council is looking for.
"So we need to think carefully about how we respond to that," he added, pointedly avoiding comment when asked whether London was working on a sanctions resolution.
Some analysts believe Arab and Muslim world anger over Washington's perceived slowness to curb Israel's anti-Hizbollah blitz, which killed mainly civilians, could erode support in the 15-member Security Council for a showdown with Iran.
Western leaders suspect Iran is making a disguised effort to build atom bombs, although most analysts believe Tehran remains 3-10 years away from mastering the requisite technology.
(Additional reporting by Mark Heinrich in Vienna, Anna Willard in Paris, Mark John in Brussels and Irwin Arieff at the United Nations)
"Moreover, I believe that the question is not so serious at the moment for the U.N. Security Council or the group of six to consider any introduction of sanctions. Russia stands for further political and diplomatic efforts to settle the issue."
On the one hand, the Russian is correct. The U.N. is useless and has been for many decades now.
On the other he is just posturing to make sure their weapons deals with Iran stay in place.
I have no earthly idea why we in the US, especially our President, would even attempt to solve this impasse through the UN.
It is time to take out all Arab states that support terrorism and the insidious goals of the Islamists.
But I am not holding my breath.
Neither should any in this country. Unfortunately!
MSM would jump at focusing on his malapropism, while highlighting the feckless truth in it.
Russia has their hand out, they will vote with whoever greases their palms the best.
I have said it before and will say it again. China and Russia have adopted a Cold War stance. So be it. If China and Russia want to stand by while Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, then they are without doubt enabling Iran. We in turn should adopt a Cold War stance and enable Russia and China's enemies. Arms to Taiwan galore. Exapansion of Nato up to Moscow's front door with FULL deployment of mobile nuclear missle platforms. Enough of being nice.
This may be much closer than anyone realizes. Of course, I personally do not know this to be the case.
""The worst thing would be to escalate into a confrontation (between the West and) Iran on the one hand, and the Muslim world with Iran. That would be the clash of civilizations that France today is practically alone in trying to avoid," he said."
We noticed. We also noticed it in WWII.
And of course "most analysts" could never be wrong, so let's all just relax and enjoy the next decade.
Works for me! But any bets if we do it? LOL
Right On! But as I keep asking, will we have the cajones to do it?
Exactly, personally, I think Iran is hot right now... not in five years or 8 months. WTH are we waiting for?
Or we could just eliminate their buddy Iran which would be cheaper and easier !!!
What's to prevent other countries and/or individuals from offering the requiste kowledge?
We should pull all of our factories out of China right now and move them to Mexico. This will screw China while drawing the illegals back to Mexico!
November elections?
I've so much hoped for the Iranian people to stage a counter-revolution and throw the mullahs out.
Now I think it may be too late.
You're right. Appeasement always works! /sarcasm
Fine, looks like we're just gonna have to use nukes. Why we bother with the UN is beyond me.
I'm getting the impression that the UN was created so that the USA would never declare war again.
Back stabbin' MFers. It was reported Russia gave the US assurances when the Iran resolution was passed calling for the cessation of nuclear enrichment that if Iran failed to stop that Russia would go along with sanctions. Well, here we are and what do we have, a knife in our back
The Iranians are paying off the Russians now?
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.