"Russia Disses Iran Sanctions"

HRC's 3 a.m. campaign ad about Obama was only 1/24th right. It's not just 3 a.m., it's the other 23 hours, too.

Isn't it curious how some folks react to newspaper headlines like this?

A couple of weeks ago the headlines all seemed to indicate Iran had caved in to our demands and was about to open the country up to outside nuclear inspectors....and ship all their enriched nuclear stuff to Russia. Now the headlines seem to shift to the opposite direction.

But Marty, being a True Believer, only takes headlines literally when they confirm his own rendition of The Whole Truth. Marty's Iran narrative is simple [or simplistic as some suggest] and to the point: Tehran is building a nuclear bomb only in order to drop it on Tel Aviv. So he reacts to the headlines only from that perspective.

Alas, there are only cupcakes or turds in the internal landscape of The True Believers.

Thus Obama and Clinton have been taken for a ride by the Russians because, really, aren't they all turds?

george

I have no idea what you expect her to do. We have seen the results of 8 years of Republican huffing and puffing and it got us nowhere.

"After Obama agreed to cancel the missile defense program for Poland and the Czech Republic," Did you ever think that maybe this was a good and realistic thing to do. Have you ever even looked at a map? Kaliningrad is next to Poland, there is zero chance in hell missile defense can work there, and if not as a defense against the Russian, what the hell is it for? Can you possibly imagine Iran will launch missiles against Poland? To what end?

Do you have any solutions yourself besides being snarky? Diplomacy is the art of the possible, not the art of whatever it is you want. As to me, how to solve the situation in Iran, I got Bupkis mit Kuduchas.

On a practical matter, as I have said before, even if it means going up to our eyes in debt, we should be moving as fast away from a petroleum based economy, this would solve virtually all of our problems in the middle east. They would either have to modernize or wither away.

"we should be moving as fast away from a petroleum based economy, this would solve virtually all of our problems in the middle east. They would either have to modernize or wither away."

Amen to the only idea that will work. a project that Japan, China, and India should join in - gosh, I no longer trust the Europeans.

Russia just loves tension over Iran because Russia needs more petro-dollars.
Still digesting the idea that Russia wants Iran as an ally in subduing Sunni Islamic fervor in the former Soviet states. That still makes no sense. Russia wants Iran without the mullahs, preferably without anyone?

I hold The Nation responsible.

I don't think Clinton's at fault, either. The Czech and Polish governments got left hanging out to dry by Obama, Obama got nothing from the Russians in return for cancelling the system in the way of Russian support for credible UN sanctions against Iran (which would need probably unattainable Chinese support anyways), the US has no plans to impose unilateral or multilateral (e.g., France, Britain) sanctions on Iran, and that the interim shorter range missile defense system doesn't offer a credible counter against the possible future deployment of Iranian ICBMs, whomever they might be a threat to. So, my count so far, is Russia 1, US 0. Iran 1, US 0.

ironyroad
"I hold The Nation responsible."

The Nation holds Marty and the "Jewish conspiracy" responsible.

bl462, the US imposed the missile defense systems on the Poles and the Czechs so don't get all high minded about it, only 38% in Czech Republic support it. From Angus Reid last year: "Many people in Poland remain opposed to their country’s participation in a U.S.-proposed missile defence shield, according to a poll by SMG/KRC released by TVP. 50 per cent of respondents reject the deployment of the shield on Polish soil, while 36 per cent support it."

Now how the hell are they left hanging out to dry? Do you honestly think strategically Russia would settle for just send a few missiles that can theoretically be knocked out of the sky, and nothing more? The missile defense system was just Bush's way of imposing his own domestic military political agenda on newly joined NATO countries, to pretend that the Poles and Czechs were clamoring for it is Republican delusion.

Of course, Bush was within his rights to press his strategic vision, I happen to think it was a huge waste of money and needlessly provoked Russia but that was his call, Obama has the right to make his own agenda. Now if you can reasonably defend the necessity of the missile defense shield in these two countries (against the wishes of their own people, mind you) then go ahead. Bear in mind also that neither Poland or the Czech Republic are going to say no in either case, for historical reasons which I know you are aware of.

I simply don't see American pissing away billions of dollars for no good reason as a Russian victory, more a return to American common sense.

And the notion that we should throw away hundreds of billions of dollars on non-useful military equipment as some kind of future bargaining chip is crazy. The Russians were going to respond to our putting that shield there by installing multiples of offensive missiles in the Kaliningrad Oblast, in which case in the bargaining chip wars we would have installed missiles in Latvia, on and on for no earthly good reason. Oh wait, yes, the reason had something to do with pressuring Iran but that issue would have been long forgotten when the Russian armies threaten to march on the Baltic insisting we remove our newly installed offensive missiles.

Obama was right for strategic and political reasons for getting rid of the system.

blackton,

As usual, you make excellent points. However, in self-defense (sorry about the bad pun) I never said that the canceled missile defense system was popular with the Czech or Polish electorate, what I said was the abrupt cancellation left their governments hanging out to dry.

What I should have added was why - that these governments had expended considerable political capital in supporting the deployment notwithstanding the lack of domestic enthusiasm for the policy - and that that may well have negative consequences for future support of US policy in Eastern Europe. I stand by my comments that the US got nothing in return from the Russians - it seemed to me that the abrupt cancellation was an attempt to trade the missile system for Russian support on Iran.

As for Russian armies marching on the Baltic, in the immortal words of Peter Griffith, aw, 'cmon.

uh, ...that should be "in the immortal words of Peter Griffin..." Same quote, though.

bl462, ok. good point. I didn't think about that, I viewed it strategically and not politically. I simply don't know enough about the political situation to know how much blowback there was. I don't like Vaclev Klaus, but that is pretty much because of his opposition to the EU treaty. Personally, if you are going to afix blame then it should be applied equally to both Bush and Obama. In both cases it was presented as a fait accompli. To the charge that Obama is as arrogant on this issue to the Poles and Czechs as Bush was I plead nolo contendere.

As to the Russians marching on the baltics, it was hyperbole for effect. (which seems to be the internet standard for both left and right) so you got me on that but at least I am aware of it.

Blackie, as one who has studied and lived with the Russians, they will ALWAYS be "needlessly provoked." They are not our friends now because their elites, like ours, are Cold Warriors, and they lost. Wait 40 years.

The Sec State is simply dreaming if she believes that this Russian gov't will act in friendship toward the US. The Iran sanctions are only one example. Does anyone seriously believe that 10-20 or so interceptor missiles are a threat to the Russian nuclear arsenal? It's a laughable position, yet the Russians advance it, and we're supposed to take them seriously?

Aw, c'mon, indeed.

Does anyone seriously believe that 10-20 or so interceptor missiles are a threat to the Russian nuclear arsenal?

per my point above, no, no one does, my problem is that it just starts a round of stupid tit for tat escalation. The Russians now won't station Iksander missiles in the Kaliningrad oblast. In response to that we would have...etc.

WorldSecurityNetworks
J.D. Bindenagel: It was long clear that missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic was not an effective defense against Iran and the alternative missile defense proposed is much more likely to be effective. That said, deploying those systems in new NATO member states without full consultation and at least hearing the Russian concerns would inevitably lead to Putin's Munich Security Conference speech and the retort that the missiles were a defense against Russia. Once down that path, the political as well as the security value of the proposed systems were damaged beyond political repair. If it was not a boneheaded idea in the first place, deployments against Iran in Poland and the Czech Republic became one.

I am still waiting for an argument why stationing these missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic was a strategically good idea, and a necessary one. Lamenting the fact that we got nothing from deciding not to needlessly station missiles seems ludicrous to me. The Russians were not going to launch sanctions against Iran as a price of our not putting missiles there, they were going to deploy Iskander missiles to the Oblast.

Anyone who imagines the Russians would ever sanction Iran, outside of their own overwhelming self-interest... as been said here c'mon yourselves.

First, I am not at all convinced that the interceptors in Poland and the CR would not have done what they were supposed to do. Beyond that, the strategic value of the stationing was that we indicated to our Central European allies that we will take their sides against the Russians, who even now are trying to recover their sphere of influence in the region (as in the Caucausus and Central Asia, die-hard imperialists that they are). We have proved to be unreliable allies, based on this administration's actions.

Necessary? Of course not. But then not much really is. Why not side with our friends against a country that is not our friend? Because, as you note, Russia won't sanction Iran anyway.

I agree, blackie. Russia will never sanction Iran. The best we can hope for is an abstention at the UNSC, and the same goes for China (also not our friend). Don't bet on it.

"I agree, blackie. Russia will never sanction Iran. The best we can hope for is an abstention at the UNSC, and the same goes for China (also not our friend). Don't bet on it."

Well, maybe the problem then is not Russian or China, but they UN itself.

How useful is an organization for world peace and human rights if it keeps protecting the worst human rights offenders and countries that are hell bent on obliterating other countries?

I think one of the problems connected with showing a political commitment to allies in C&E Europe and making it clear we won't tolerate any renewal of Russian "sphere of influence" tactics is that history is longer than we often admit, and geography counts. Russian influence has always been considerable over a couple of hundred years at least in the Baltic, in Poland, in the Ukraine, and so on, and the Cold War structures of domination were less of an anomaly that we might think.

This doesn't mean intimidation and even military threats are returning tomorrow -- the Russians probably want to keep it on a low flame anyhow -- but it does mean that geography still counts and Eastern Europe is going to have a relationship with Russia that is partly rooted in that fact. Neighbors can't ignore each other, and small neighbors can't ignore a big one.

And, awkward as it may be, promises were made to the Russians that we wouldn't rub their noses in the collapse of the Soviet Union and extend our writ in a way that humiliated them. As it turned out, however, NATO membership now extends to their front door and, in the case of the Ukraine and Georgia, potentially into their hallway.

In theory, these are just two countries exercising their sovereign rights, but I really don't see how a conversation on the lines of "Stop interfering in the rights of former Soviet Republics to desert you and join NATO! -- Oh, and while you're at it, we need a lot more help on Iran!" is going anywhere useful.

Jackson, the UN should be seen as a tool of US foreign policy. We should use it to our advantage when we can, and ignore it the rest of the time.

Good points, irony. But the geography does not mean that the US should pressure its EE allies to accept missile defense, and then when the Russians whine, pull the rug out from under them. As for NATO membership, we haven't forced it on anyone. The Ukies and the Georgians WANT to join, and we all know why - that pesky geography.

"Pesky" is indeed the word, butchie! Pesky, but a fact.

I agree we didn't force NATO on anyone. Absolutely. But I sense that what the Russians thought back 17-18 years ago was that we would also be discouraging about accepting applications from, as you say, the Balts and the Ukies et al. And we weren't. We said, come on in. Perhaps rightly, but then even the right thing has consequences: pissed-off Russkies. Why we expect them to be cooperative on Iran when we rubbed their noses in it over NATO expansion, that's what I don't get.

I agree that the interceptor thing hasn't been handled well but I believe the origin of the mess was the BA's decision to stick them there in the first place. And I also think that one of the dumbest things we can do is make or imply promises that we can't or won't keep, so the like of the "We're all Georgians now!" rhetoric from McCain is both hollow and dishonest.

You mean like an Iranian nuke is "unacceptable," said by both W and the Current Occupant. If it's unaccepatble, what will he do when faced with the decision to accept it? Speaking of hollow and dishonest.

And don't tell me that he will instigate military action, because I will buy anyone on these boards a steak dinner at any restaurant in North America if and when Barack Obama bombs Iran's nuclear sites. It just ain't happening.

BTW, the Russians were not going to "be cooperative" on Iran regardless of what we did or did not do regarding NATO expansion. Who do you think helped build the reactor at Bushehr? The Russians are in it "do gorlo" - up to their necks - in Iran. Again, they are not our friends.

And if we solve the Iranian issue without bombing? Would that be ok, or not satisfying enough?

You may be right about the Russians, but it still seems as if we exacerbated a tendency that we could have weakened.

No, it would be fine with me. I am on record here as being against bombing and for deterrence plus. No matter - the Iranians have made it crystal clear over the past decade that they have no intention of giving up their nuclear program, and only a fool believes that they want only nuclear power.

I just wish our Presidents would stop letting their alligator mouths overload their canary asses.