US Ambassador John Bolton is demanding real results from the UN Security Council regarding Iran:
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said on Thursday the U.N. Security Council should issue a "vigorous response" to Iran's nuclear ambitions or the United States might have to consider other steps.
But divisions persist among the five permanent council members, with China, and to a lesser extent Russia, calling for continued negotiations with Iran and apprehensive about putting the issue on the council's agenda for the first time."We're going to press for as vigorous a response in the council as we can get and hope that that gets the Iranians' attention," Bolton said told reporters.
"If the Iranians do not back off from their continued aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons, we'll have to make a decision of what the next step will be," he said.
John Bolton is making it clear to the UN and the rest of the world that the United States is going through UN channels right now, but the US will act if Iran continues with its nuclear program.
At this point, Russia and China are going wobbly on Iran as each country relies heavily on Iranian oil:
However, Russia seemed to rule out tough council measures.
The Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, said sanctions against Iran would be ineffective and military action was not a solution. "I don't think sanctions as a means to solve a crisis have ever achieved a goal in recent history," Mr Lavrov said.
So Russia says no sanctions or military action. What's left? Begging?
In Beijing, China's Foreign Minister, Li Zhoxing, called for more negotiations, saying: "There is still room for co-operation" and "we support the European Union and Russian engagement with Iran".
How vigorous a response can we get from the Security Council when both of these countries have veto power?
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
World
Comments (8)
We're being forced into act... (Below threshold)1. Posted by jpm100 | March 10, 2006 12:26 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
We're being forced into acting alone again by everyone else taking one step back. And if we do actually do something, we'll be bastards again.
I say we tell Iran, its open season in Russia, China, and even Europe. For that matter as long as you stay away from US targets, we won't bomb the piss out of your country no matter who else you hit, except maybe the Brits.
1. Posted by jpm100 | March 10, 2006 12:26 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 10, 2006 00:26
2. Posted by palehorse | March 10, 2006 12:40 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I firmly support the comment above. China and Russia are backing down in fear of the Muslim Extremists. Chinas too busy feeding the Machine that sucks the US dry and Russia wants to feed the Iranians with warheads.
2. Posted by palehorse | March 10, 2006 12:40 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 10, 2006 00:40
3. Posted by Rick13 | March 10, 2006 8:54 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? So we're the "Bastards", big deal. I really don't care what Pepe Le Pu thinks. Keep America safe by keeping the world safe. I'll proudly fly the "Bastard" flag right below the Stars & Stripes!
3. Posted by Rick13 | March 10, 2006 8:54 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 10, 2006 08:54
4. Posted by Falze | March 10, 2006 9:14 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
How long before Bolton needs a vote to continue at the UN? Should be good seeing Democrats say he shouldn't be confirmed for a full term after he was nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work there.
4. Posted by Falze | March 10, 2006 9:14 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 10, 2006 09:14
5. Posted by OregonMuse | March 10, 2006 9:39 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said on Thursday the U.N. Security Council should issue a "vigorous response" to Iran's nuclear ambitions or the United States might have to consider other steps.
Exactly the stance we should take. Bolton is delivering much needed (but little wanted) medicine to the UN. Remind me again why the Democrats were so violently opposed to his confirmation?
5. Posted by OregonMuse | March 10, 2006 9:39 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 10, 2006 09:39
6. Posted by Charlie Quidnunc | March 10, 2006 10:17 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You can hear Bolton at the AIPAC meeting in the Wizbang Podcast #12. He minces no words.
I know that we need sanctions that bite, but are we willing to include oil? Without Iranian oil, world prices will go to $100/barrel, and gas above $5/gallon. Are we ready?
6. Posted by Charlie Quidnunc | March 10, 2006 10:17 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 10, 2006 10:17
7. Posted by LJD | March 10, 2006 10:20 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
We can set up steam power generation plants over the smoldering remains...
7. Posted by LJD | March 10, 2006 10:20 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 10, 2006 10:20
8. Posted by i9xsytgs | April 9, 2006 9:33 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is what's going to happen.Before this year is over, The U.S.A. Will be at war with Iran. Reason? Israel is going to attack Iran's nuclear "plants" and some other targets of interest then Iran will attack Israel then like a good neighbor will be there! A new deep rocket Buncker buster bombs of low yield power willbe used to destroy the plant.And of course Iran will get an early wakeup call when cruise missiles hit and F-117's go in to shutdown thier eyes and ears first. Then it's bombs away on "both" sides. Is your shelter done yet?
8. Posted by i9xsytgs | April 9, 2006 9:33 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on April 9, 2006 21:33