Kneeling to the mullahs 4

Iran has shown, with the launch of a satellite, that it now has ballistic missiles capable of reaching Europe.

It has responded to Obama’s pathetic plea for its friendship with scorn and derision.

But still the ‘Great Powers’ (a complimentary lie as a description of all of them except the US) will do nothing to stop Iran from arming its proxies or developing nuclear weapons. 

Caroline Glick writes:

On Wednesday emissaries of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany convened in Wiesbaden, Germany, to discuss their joint policies toward Iran in the aftermath of the satellite launch. Some Israelis argued that Iran’s provocation forced these leaders’ hands. Their reputations for toughness were on the line. They would have to do something.

Unfortunately for Israel, the emissaries of Russia, Britain, China, France, Germany and the US are more interested in convincing the mullahs that they are nice than in convincing them that they are tough.

 

Far from deciding to take concerted action against Iran, the great powers did nothing more than wish the Obama administration good luck as it moves to directly engage the mullahs. As their post-conference press release put it, the six governments’ answer to Teheran’s show of force was to "agree to consult on the next steps as the US administration undertakes its [Iranian] policy review."

As President Barak Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have explained, the US is reviewing its policy toward Iran in the hopes of finding a way to directly engage the Iranian government. While they claim that the aim of these sought after direct negotiations will be to convince the mullahs to give up their nuclear weapons program, since taking office the new administration has sent out strong signals that preventing Iran from going nuclear has taken a backseat to simply holding negotiations with Teheran.

According to a report in Aviation News, last week the US Navy prevented Israel from seizing an Iranian weapons ship in the Red Sea suspected of carrying illicit munitions bound for either Gaza or Lebanon. A week and a half ago, the US Navy boarded the ship in the Gulf of Aden and carried out a cursory inspection. It demurred from seizing the ship, however, because, as Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained on January 27, the US believed it had no international legal right to seize the vessel.

In inspecting the ship the US was operating under UN Security Council Resolution 1747, which bars Iran from exporting arms. The US argued that it lacked authority to seize the ship because 1747 has no enforcement mechanism. Yet the fact of the matter is that if the US were truly interested in intercepting the ship and preventing the arms from arriving at their destination, the language of 1747 is vague enough to support such a seizure.

And that’s the point. The US was uninterested in seizing the ship because it was uninterested in provoking a confrontation with Teheran, which it seeks to engage. It was not due to lack of legal authority that the US reportedly prevented the Israel Navy from seizing the ship in the Red Sea, but due to the administration’s fervent wish to appease the mullahs.

Posted under Commentary by Jillian Becker on Saturday, February 7, 2009

Tagged with ,

This post has 4 comments.

Permalink
  • Matthew Slijyper

    “Wants the bomb for peaceful purposes?” And what might those peaceful purposes be, Nathan? Do you happen to know what a bomb is used for, especially the nuclear ones?

  • Nathan

    It is grotesquely unfair that the U.S. should allow Israel to have nuclear weaponry when they condemn Iran for attempting to get a nuclear bomb.
    And besides Iran only wants the bomb for peaceful purposes contrary to the Israeli way of thinking.

  • Jillian Becker

    Yes, I see it the same way, r in f. To make itself dependent on a favor from Iran in order to carry on in Afghanistan – to no foreseeable end – is the height of folly. But what better could be expected from an Obama-Clinton administration?

  • roger in florida

    Washington is also in direct talks with Tehran about the US using a deep water port in the Persian Gulf and a highway across Iran to Afghanistan to supply the NATO forces there. They are also attempting to negotiate with Russia for an alternate supply route. This after Taliban fighters blew up a bridge across the Khyber river gorge last week, which has the NATO forces now dependent on air supply only.

    The Iranians will open the route as it provides them with many advantages:

    1. It gives them a lever over the US in any future disputes.
    2. It allows (even encourages) the US to continue this idiotic campaign in Afghanistan, an irrelevant backwater if ever there was one. While allowing Iran to concentrate on the Arab states around the Gulf.
    3. It provides much needed jobs for Iranians. in Iran unemployment is over 30%.

    Our enemies are playing chess, while US plays tiddlywinks.