I guess this shows the level of commitment both have to Iran's security, which leads me to believe that the US will never risk an attack on Iran, although Israel might still take action, but even then they might suffer some serious consequences. Interesting development, I view it more as part of a larger commitment from Russia and China to impose a 'sphere of influence' over Central Asia, including Iran, which gives them the necessary strategic 'window' on the Middle East. I wouldn't be surprised if there is further military cooperation among all sides involved. http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2005-daily/22-09-2005/main/main3.htm Russia, China warn US, EU over Iran nuclear plan VIENNA: Russia and China warned the United States and European Union on Wednesday against escalating the nuclear standoff with Iran, potentially blocking a Western drive to haul Tehran before the UN Security Council. The European Union has circulated a US-backed draft resolution calling on the IAEA governing board to report Iran’s secretive nuclear programme to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions. The United States claimed on Wednesday there was a growing majority ready to report Iran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme but Tehran rallied support against such a move at the UN atomic watchdog. Western countries suspect Tehran is developing atomic weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear energy programme. Iran insists its programme is peaceful and intended to meet its energy requirements. Both Russia and China, which as permanent, veto-wielding members of the Council could block any action, warned the West against antagonising Iran. "While Iran is cooperating with the IAEA, while it is not enriching uranium and observing a moratorium, while IAEA inspectors are working in the country, it would be counter-productive to report this question to the UN Security Council," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said. "It will lead to an unnecessary politicising of the situation. Iran is not violating its obligations and its actions do not threaten the non-proliferation regime," he said in a speech in San Francisco reported by the RIA Novosti news agency. And Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing told an EU team headed by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw at the United Nations that sending the Iran issue to the Security Council could be counter-productive, a European participant said. The diplomat quoted Li as saying that kicking the issue from Vienna to New York "could encourage Iran to take extreme measures" and would not be constructive. "The Russians are blocking the resolution," said a diplomat from one of the EU "big three" countries — France, Britain and Germany — on condition of anonymity. "They aren’t moving at all, not one centimeter. They don’t even want to talk about the resolution. They don’t want to propose any amendments. Nothing," the diplomat said. Russia’s Foreign Ministry made it clear in an email to Reuters that it would prefer a different kind of resolution. "We are ready to work with all parties involved on a resolution that would reflect the situation in a balanced way and help find negotiable solutions and solid guarantees that the Iranian nuclear programme is peaceful," the ministry said. Echoing US language on Iran, the EU hardened its rhetoric, blasting Iran for its determination to press ahead with a programme which could produce atomic bombs. "We ... regret, and feel deeply concerned by the fact that Iran gives every sign of being intent on developing a fissile material production capability well before the international community obtains what it needs: confidence that Iran’s programme is exclusively peaceful in nature," the EU said in a statement on behalf of 25 EU members and other European states. Other Western countries on the IAEA board, including Canada, Japan and Australia support the EU draft resolution. But only 20 or 21 out of 35 members back it at the moment, diplomats say. Meanwhile, the United States on Wednesday urged its fellow International Atomic Energy Agency board members to do their "duty" and vote in coming days to haul Iran before the UN Security Council for violating its nuclear treaty commitments.
In related news... http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C48E2710-F0B4-4563-BFC4-9125C02E5DDE.htm EU drops bid to refer Iran case to UN The European Union has backed off from its attempt to have Iran immediately called before the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme, due to fierce opposition from Russia and China, diplomats said. Several diplomats from the European Union's Big Three - France, Britain and Germany - said on Thursday they had dropped the demand in the interest of getting a unanimous resolution approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors, which is meeting this week. Iran's official Irna news agency also confirmed this, citing Germany's ambassador to the IAEA, Herbert Honsowitz, as saying: "The EU has withdrawn its request to send Iran's case to the Security Council." The EU earlier in the week had been calling overtly for Iran's immediate referral to the council over nuclear activities the US claims hide weapons work. Fear of retaliation But at a meeting in Vienna this week of the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board of governors, Russia, China and non-aligned nations rejected hauling Iran before the UN, citing fears trade sanctions against the Islamic Republic could draw sharp retaliation from the oil giant. The draft resolution "requests" IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei to report on Iran's nuclear program "to the IAEA board (of governors) which will address the timing and content" in its own report on Tehran that could be given to the Security Council, although the Council's name is not mentioned. The previous draft circulated on Monday by the EU had called for a report "to the Security Council". The new draft does however specifically find Iran in non-compliance with international safeguards mandated under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Russian factor A Western diplomat said the climbdown in calling this week for Iran to be taken to the Security Council was due to Russia's stiff opposition to the move. "The Russians are the reason," the diplomat said, adding that the hope was that delaying referral "gets them on board". However, it was unclear if the new draft resolution would be accepted by Russians and the non-aligned nations, as the IAEA board of governors continued its meeting on Thursday. Another diplomat said the delay was "frustrating" as EU negotiators Britain, France and Germany had written a strong resolution and were determined earlier in the week to get a consensus on referral. Failing that, they were determined to call for a vote on referral, which they believed the West had enough votes to win. But diplomats said there was concern that a lack of consensus could diminish the message they were trying to deliver to Iran, which rejected a trade deal with the EU and restarted last month sensitive nuclear fuel work, triggering a new crisis.
In related news... China and Russia have big fat contracts with Iran they don't want to jeopardize. Sounds familiar. In fact, both have aspirations to replace the US as world hegemon. What a news flash. Said it before and will say it again - let 'em have 'em. Pour our resources into alternative energies and let China and Russia deal with a nuclear Islam. It gonna just bite them in the ass because they've got a lot more friction in western China and Chechnya than we do in the US. Poor EU's getting hung out to dry by their old partners China and Russia, lol.
LOL! True. I know there is nothing surprising about it, but the reason why this interests me is that I really do believe that the next 'great game' will be over which 'pole' dominates Central Asia. Basically, I am wondering who will 'blink' first in this 'showdown' over Central Asia: the Chinese/Russian pole or the United States. Granted, the US is alone in this, since the Europeans have absolutely zero interest in contending with the Chinese/Russians over that region or anywhere else. In short, NATO isn't in on this, it's just the US. On the other hand, it seems like the Chinese/Russians and most Asian countries are opposed to US presence there, especially Russia, which considers this region a historical part of its 'sphere of influence'.
Brazil, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Uzbekistan, etc.....one by one, China is racking up key strategic alliances....all the while owning a significant chunk of our federal debt....we may still be the biggest baddest mofo on the block, but they are certainly gaining leverage on us...
Europe decided a long time ago they would not go to war to stop Iran's nukes. The USA cannot because of the Iraq mess. I doubt Israel will try an attack because it wouldn't eliminate the problem and would put them in a worse position. That one shot deal they did Iraq way back will never happen again. Iran isn't stupid enough to leave themselves vulnerable to a quick strike, which is all Israel is capable of executing. Iran's allies, Russia & China, definitely resent US influence in the region. This is driven by the Afghanistan and (especially) Iraq occupations. This almost forces them to support Iran just to exert influence. Eventually in 7-10 years, Iran will announce they have nuclear weapons and the world will have to deal with it. Russia and China have decided they want to be on Iran's good side when this comes to pass. My bet is by then, some sort of diplomatic conclusion will be reached with Europe also, and maybe the US. The Central Asia "game" between the US and Russia will be interesting to watch, but I think the Southeast Asia "game" between the US and China will be more interesting because of what's at stake. Most people here don't realize that SE Asian nations now are already deferring to China in many ways already. When military links between some of those nations and the US start to fray, you could really see some fireworks. China is working tirelessly to undermine us and eventually they will succeed, IMO. It will be a long hard fight because we still have a lot of economic leverage and those countries like to use their US ties to force China not to be so heavy handed on them. There is a strong resentment against China in those countries much the same way there is against the US in South America.
I think we've got a big card to play in central asia the same as in eastern europe, mainly that they resent their former oppressors the Russians more than the Russians resent out presence there. Central Asia is clamoring for good relations with the US the same as EE was. Unfortunately their revolutions/independence didn't bring democratic reforms as in EE, so whether we push them back to the Russians over human rights etc is still up in the air. Personally I think it just one more indicator that we're moving our foreign policy in the 'right' direction even if we've got to take short term hits for long term gains.
Money money money... Russia and China are selling Iran parts for that program....funny how that matters. DD
Good point, we also have to hope the Islamic fundamentalists don't overthrow the dictators. The "Turkmenbashi" guy is so bad he's almost worse than the Islamists. Turkmenistan, for example, is almost a no-win situation.
When you have an extremist regime already in power, the only way to truly counter it is by another extreme (ie radical Islamists in most cases). That's just the nature of politics.
I'm not sure I agree with that. The relatively peaceful revolutions throughout Eastern Europe didn't need to do this. Even in places like Romania where there was an upswell that included some violence (killing Ceausescu) there wasn't a need to go extremist. Of course those aren't places where a radical religion, or radical wing of a religion are prime.
