 |
| Clinton and Netanyahu |
Clinton: US "Not Setting Deadlines" for Iran -Indira A.R. Lakshmanan
The U.S. is "not setting deadlines" for Iran and still considers negotiations as "by far the best approach" to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview.
Asked if the Obama administration will lay out sharper "red lines" for Iran or state explicitly the consequences of failing to negotiate a deal with world powers by a certain date, Clinton said, "We're not setting deadlines."
While the U.S. and Israel share the goal that Iran not acquire a nuclear weapon, Clinton said there is a difference in perspective over the time horizon for talks. "They're more anxious about a quick response because they feel that they're right in the bull's-eye, so to speak," Clinton said.
(Bloomberg)
*
Canada Closes Iran Embassy, Expels Iranian Diplomats -Bruce Campion-Smith
In a surprise move, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced that Canada was closing its embassy in Tehran and expelling Iranian diplomats from Canada as it formally declared Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. Baird branded Iran as the "most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today."
He cited a list of long-standing beefs with the regime in Tehran, including Iranian military assistance to Syria and its refusal to comply with UN resolutions on its nuclear program. "It routinely threatens the existence of Israel and engages in racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide; it is among the world's worst violators of human rights," Baird said. He said the main motivation was an attack on the British embassy in Tehran nine months ago and worries that Canadian diplomats were in danger.
(Toronto Star-Canada)
*
Bridging the U.S.-Israeli Gap on Iran -Editorial
The disagreement conveys to Iran that there is no need to worry about a war; certainly, the country's leaders have been behaving as if they feel no pressure to compromise. It also creates the bizarre spectacle of senior U.S. military and diplomatic officials focusing their time and attention on trying to prevent an Israeli attack rather than an Iranian bomb.
If Mr. Obama really is determined to take military action if Iran takes decisive steps toward producing a bomb, such as enriching uranium to bomb-grade levels or expelling inspectors, he would be wise to say so publicly. Doing so would improve relations with Mr. Netanyahu and deter unilateral Israeli action - and it might well convince Iran that the time has come to compromise.
(Washington Post)
*
2 comments:
There was a lot in this post! Interestingly, many attack Obama and his administration whatever they do. When they say what they are doing, leaving Iraq or Afghanistan they are attacked for giving timetables. When they do not give deadlines but ramp up the economic and political pressure and far and away stronger than any US administration before them, they are attacked. Even though many of the same places claim that the US and this administration are known to be utilizing covert means and are hardly ever accused of ignoring the situation. The world is a different place than in years gone by. There may be limits to what Israel can accomplish on its own. The US is certainly not anxious for war---owing to the pointless conflict in Iraq that empowered Iran in the first place as well as the necessary but poorly handled conflict in Afghanistan. Also, China and Russia must be contended with, something not really of concern in the 90's. Israel is right to be most concerned as Clinton pointed out they are in the bulls eye. Nevertheless, that does not mean actions should be taken without thought to their repercussions. The entire world including ALL of its neighbors abhors the idea of a nuclear Iran. The end to this story is not written nor probably even accurately conceived.
Indeed, it is hard to know how this will conclude. But if the North Korean, Pakistani, Iraqi & Syrian nuclear experiences are any indication, the US will continue to choose not to act.
This could be a game changing poor decision, unlike the ones before.
Allowing a jihadi nuke is a stunningly serious mistake.
I resepectfully disagree with you that President Obama has backed strong sanctions. He was reluctant to sign onto the current ones and watered them down some. Additionally, now that they're obviously not working, he is silent about taking them further. He appears to be waiting out the election, when he can return to his default passivity.
Post a Comment