Monday, July 31st 2006
A New Leaf in New York?
On July 31, 2006 the United Nations Security Council endorsed Resolution 1696, giving the Islamic Republic of Iran exactly one month to suspend its uranium-enrichment activities. This is a major turnaround for the international body; just weeks ago it seemed as if China and Russia were going to stall any and all efforts designed to put more international pressure on Tehran.
The major “power players” in passing this resolution were the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council – Russia, China, France, the U.K., and the U.S. – plus, surprisingly, Germany. Berlin has been quite active in the international coalition to stop Tehran’s uranium enrichment of late. This is mostly due to the November 2005 election of the center-right German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. She is now Washington’s biggest ally behind Blair, a voice of reason stuck in between France’s pacifist Chirac and Russia’s autocratic Putin.
Tehran learned a hard lesson today. It will not distract the international community, through its funneling of weapons and monetary support to Hezbollah’s murderous campaign, in an attempt to conceal its nuclear ambitions. The cities of Tyre, Bint Jbail, and Haifa may be dominating the news now, but Tehran will be in the headlines again. The “Perm 5+1” only signed a piece of paper today, but, given the divisive situation around the world and inside the U.N., that is a sufficient start.
Chirac is a pacifist? Wow, since when?
I don’t think Tehran learned a lesson at all. This isn’t a surprise, considering the build-up over the past year, and Tehran certainly expected it.
Comment by Yaman — 8/1/2006 @ 2:44 pm
In regards to Iraq, first of all. And France isn’t helping the situation by calling Iran a “stabilizing force in the region.” Plus Chirac was nowhere to be found when his country was in turmoil with those protests a while back.
You’re right about 1696 not being a huge surprise. But what was a surprise was the Chinese and Russian attempts to derail it. The resolution’s passage, while not unexpected, certainly was a relief. Tehran thought it could buy itself more time or even get off the hook - they, thankfully, were wrong.
Comment by Tommy Owens — 8/1/2006 @ 3:20 pm
The UN will send letter after letter infinitum, after Iran ignores any calls to stop producing enriched uranium. The UN will do nothing. However, on the positive side, the UN might make backdoor oil for food programs – because they have a history of this – and heading this operation, non-other than Kofi’s own son will take charge like he always does. Chriacy-the Weasel- Whacy, will get his paws into the pie as well. It’such a lovely small world.
Comment by Anonymous — 8/1/2006 @ 3:21 pm
You’re right. The question is now what will the UN do, not merely say, should Iran say “thanks but no thanks” on Aug 31st.
Comment by Tommy Owens — 8/1/2006 @ 4:07 pm
Let’s show Iran some American Justice.
Comment by bobby gregg — 8/1/2006 @ 5:58 pm
(that last sentence of my post should say “it was wrong”…sorry)
Comment by Tommy Owens — 8/1/2006 @ 7:13 pm
Invading Iran before they build nuclear weapons might be necessary and if so would be justified. It’s too damn bad that the USA blew it by destabilizing the strongest secular regime in the region, which also happened to be right next door and a traditional enemy of Iran, not to mention a potential ally in such a war that could have absorbed a great deal of damage in border clashes and saved the US troops a lot of pain. Whoops. Chalk that one up to live and learn, I guess.
Comment by Crotch Gangster — 8/3/2006 @ 12:07 am
Crotch Gangster: Will you join the military, if it’s as easy as you make it sound?
Comment by Yaman — 8/3/2006 @ 2:43 am
I’m not sure if an invasion is necessary — just send in some cruise missiles and take out all the nuclear facilities we know about. Send them back 10 years, and maybe by then the U.N. will grow some balls to stand up to Iran.
Comment by bobby gregg — 8/3/2006 @ 10:57 am
Crotch: I doubt any reasonable person could call a man who funneled $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers, or who had paintings done of his face next to the burning Twin Towers “secular.” Didn’t he also have a Qu’aran written with his blood? Sure it might have been lip service, but Saddam was no athiest.
Comment by Tommy Owens — 8/3/2006 @ 3:21 pm