And I'm not talking strictly in terms geography. Culturally, religiously, domestically, even their power structures are very different. For starters, Iran's structure is a lot more byzantine and complex.
I'm aware of the geography (more than Bush was, I think) and have noted it here and at wotmania. It's part of why the Iraq invasion was so stupid, because it totally undercut the Khatami governments efforts to democratize and open relations with the West in general along with America specifically. Against the backdrop of Saddams non-existent and North Koreas highly successful nuclear weapons programs it made Ahmadinejads "we need nukes!1!1" policies very appealing for the same reason it made Khatamis insistence America was an honest broker for peace so non-credible.
Oh, I totally agree. I can't help but feel how tragic it is, that when they had the most-reformist minded president ever in Khatami, we had President Bush. But now that we have President Obama, they have Ahmajinedad. There's a cruel irony in all this.
China isn't going to let Russias desire to sell Iran finished products rather than letting Iran independently produce them stand in their way. It's one of the few reasons Russia's a better partner for peace; they see it as in their interest to keep rogue states perpetually beholden to them, while China seems to think nothing of setting them up with all the military hardware they want in the interest of both profits and complicating things for their supposed American allies. That radicals in Pakistan might decide to send their nukes back to them over treatment of Muslim extremists in China is rather cold comfort for everyone. But don't kid yourself that if it comes down to it China's not willing to exercise a unilateral veto of efforts to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons.
I'm not convinced the Chinese will exercise a unilateral veto, mostly because unless it involves the three T's (Tibet, Tienanmen, and Taiwan) China tends to play a more subtle game at the UN. I'm sure they'll try to water down any new sanctions resolution that's how they went about it in the past. But in terms of exercising a unilateral veto against a united US/France/Britian/Russia front it's really not their style. But look, this is all premature talk - they won't be putting up new sanctions unless the P5+1 negotiations fail, so let's hope they don't fail. Personally, I'd like to see the US and Iran normalize trade relations eventually - there's a lot to be gained by both sides.
That really wasn't the issue I was trying to get into. What I wanted to emphasize is that, whether the country is Russsia, China, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. They each have their own strategic agenda, that don't necessary align with each other or with us. Which is important that we deal with each of them on a case-by-case basis. In this issue of Iran, I believe the Russians are an important partner, one which we have common strategic interests with.
Look, we're not going to be able to run an effective foreign policy, if we're going to be paranoid that everyone is out to get us. Either way, we're going to have to work with other countries to try to solve regional problems. I don't disagree that China and Russia would get a little enjoyment seeing us in a difficult position. But these problems aren't just our problems, their problems for the region as a whole - whether it's the middle east, central asia, etc. What's the alternative? are we constantly going to be antagonistic toward Russia and China all time? We can't fight the rest of the world put together.
I'm aware of the geography (more than Bush was, I think) and have noted it here and at wotmania. It's part of why the Iraq invasion was so stupid, because it totally undercut the Khatami governments efforts to democratize and open relations with the West in general along with America specifically. Against the backdrop of Saddams non-existent and North Koreas highly successful nuclear weapons programs it made Ahmadinejads "we need nukes!1!1" policies very appealing for the same reason it made Khatamis insistence America was an honest broker for peace so non-credible.
Oh, I totally agree. I can't help but feel how tragic it is, that when they had the most-reformist minded president ever in Khatami, we had President Bush. But now that we have President Obama, they have Ahmajinedad. There's a cruel irony in all this.
China isn't going to let Russias desire to sell Iran finished products rather than letting Iran independently produce them stand in their way. It's one of the few reasons Russia's a better partner for peace; they see it as in their interest to keep rogue states perpetually beholden to them, while China seems to think nothing of setting them up with all the military hardware they want in the interest of both profits and complicating things for their supposed American allies. That radicals in Pakistan might decide to send their nukes back to them over treatment of Muslim extremists in China is rather cold comfort for everyone. But don't kid yourself that if it comes down to it China's not willing to exercise a unilateral veto of efforts to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons.
I'm not convinced the Chinese will exercise a unilateral veto, mostly because unless it involves the three T's (Tibet, Tienanmen, and Taiwan) China tends to play a more subtle game at the UN. I'm sure they'll try to water down any new sanctions resolution that's how they went about it in the past. But in terms of exercising a unilateral veto against a united US/France/Britian/Russia front it's really not their style. But look, this is all premature talk - they won't be putting up new sanctions unless the P5+1 negotiations fail, so let's hope they don't fail. Personally, I'd like to see the US and Iran normalize trade relations eventually - there's a lot to be gained by both sides.
The issue seems to be whether Russia and China think it more advantageous to work with us against common foes in each other, or work with each other against a common foe in us.
That really wasn't the issue I was trying to get into. What I wanted to emphasize is that, whether the country is Russsia, China, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. They each have their own strategic agenda, that don't necessary align with each other or with us. Which is important that we deal with each of them on a case-by-case basis. In this issue of Iran, I believe the Russians are an important partner, one which we have common strategic interests with.
And as the worlds top political, economic and military power, the answer seems fairly clear as they prevent the only obstacles to limiting nuclear proliferation, the only real source of that proliferation. I think their position as a Commonwealth state and China giving Pakistan the bomb will keep India out of such an arrangement (though Indias growing economic might, a hostile nuclear power on its border and decades old alliances with us and the British may make the term "quagmire" inadequate; think of it more as a nuclear free for all that may make Kashmir long for the days all it had to fear was bombers and tanks. ) But right now it's in the interest of China and Russia to topple the king of the mountain, and aiding the nuclear ambitions of radical states serves that interest on both a military front from which they can be largely free of involvement and an economic front where they compete with no one save each other as nuclear weapons merchants.
Look, we're not going to be able to run an effective foreign policy, if we're going to be paranoid that everyone is out to get us. Either way, we're going to have to work with other countries to try to solve regional problems. I don't disagree that China and Russia would get a little enjoyment seeing us in a difficult position. But these problems aren't just our problems, their problems for the region as a whole - whether it's the middle east, central asia, etc. What's the alternative? are we constantly going to be antagonistic toward Russia and China all time? We can't fight the rest of the world put together.
Did Iran just blink?
- 06/10/2009 08:45:28 AM
572 Views
One hopes for the best, but we'll see in the long run.
- 06/10/2009 03:11:47 PM
289 Views
For once I agree with you completely.
- 06/10/2009 07:43:52 PM
356 Views
You can't really compare the situation in NK to Iran
- 07/10/2009 07:13:02 AM
280 Views
Not completely, but there are many parallels.
- 07/10/2009 10:37:53 AM
323 Views
Apples and Oranges, really
- 07/10/2009 08:22:54 PM
295 Views
Granny Smith and Golden Delicious, I think.
- 12/10/2009 01:56:03 AM
312 Views
Not really
- 12/10/2009 07:55:07 AM
296 Views