Restraining the tiger with paper chains

Vital Perspective, which is an excellent blog, has some disappointing but not surprising news concerning the UN Security Council's talks on Iran:

Vital Perspective has obtained the text of the Security Council presidential statement on Iran agreed to today. This is a watered-down statement which - at Russia's demand - dropped any reference to Chapter 7 ("threat to international peace and security"), and therefore is not binding. Iran was given thirty days to comply instead of the original fourteen. The five specific IAEA demands were watered-down to just one. This is the result of nearly a month of negotiations, meaning that Iran essentially enjoys nearly sixty days of unimpeded enrichment activities which continue unabated. This assumes, however, that action is taken after thirty days - experience shows otherwise. As we reported exclusively, Iran's enrichment progress is advancing more rapidly than previously assumed. Once again, the diplomatic process is completely out of sync with the pace of Iran's technological progress. You wouldn't know that though from reading the press.

UPDATE @ 8:02pm: John Bolton is not a happy camper: "The Security Council can and should work with other UN bodies [the IAEA], but if the Iranians take steps as they have repeatedly over the last four years that show a continuing desire to get nuclear weapons that poses and has posed a threat to international peace and security that the Security Council has a responsibility to act on. I don't know what steps the Council will take, I've said before and I'll say it again - this is a test for the Security Council. The threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism are the greatest threats to international peace and security we face in the world today. How the Council handles those threats, will be a determining factor in the role of the Council in the future."

Indications all along have been that Russia and China were not likely to support taking stringent measures against Iran.

The situation, though, is similiar to Iraq in that going the diplunacy route through the UN at least gives the US cover to be able to say we exhausted all peaceful means before any military action became necessary. But, also like Iraq, the endless dithering simply buys more time for Iran, as it did for Iraq to prepare plans for a post-war insurgency and perhaps spirit its WMD program away to Syria.

As VP points out however, the clock is ticking. Iran is charging ahead with its nuclear program, and Iran is more than happy to see endless droning in the UN. This article from Iran Focus highlights Iran's preparations.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) will begin large-scale naval exercises in the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman on Friday by firing a Shahab-2 missile “to show Iran’s desire for peace and friendship with neighbouring countries”, the IRGC naval chief said on Wednesday.

Ah, we should celebrate cultural differences, and appreciate those societies where firing missiles is a sign of peace. In a crisis, the Persian Gulf could become a flashpoint if Iran decides to try and stop the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, and this naval exercise and missile firing is a not-so-subtle reminder of exactly that.

Iran is not immune from pressure. With unrest in the southwest in the province of Khuzestan, and in the southeast in the province of Sistan-Baluchistan, student protests, unemployment, and so on, Iran might well respond to serious international action. Just today there was another example of violence inside Iran:

Three agents of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps were killed in a gun-battle in the north-west town of Salmas, the state-run news agency ISNA reported on Wednesday.

The IRGC agents were from the towns of Khoy, Maku, and Marand, the report said.

Salmas, close to the Turkish border, is situated in the province of West Azerbaijan.

However, with Russia and China running interference for them, Iran must be chuckling at the lack of Western fortitude. Some in the US government and in other governments seem to have decided that we can live with a nuclear-armed Iran. But, we shouldn't mistake wishful thinking for analysis.

Regime Change Iran points to an article in Haaretz which says the following:

Former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar said Tuesday that Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told him five years ago that "setting Israel on fire" was the first order of business on the Iranian agenda.

Aznar, in Israel as the guest of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, related the story to Major General (Res.) Professor Yitzhak Ben-Israel, who later confirmed to Haaretz that the remarks had been made.

Aznar's aides refused to give Haaretz the exact quote, but mentioned an article Aznar has written in the past on his meeting with Khamenei.

"He received me politely," Aznar wrote, "and at the beginning of the meeting he explained to me why Iran must declare war on Israel and the United States until they are completely destroyed. I made only one request of him: that he tell me the time of the planned attack.

When someone threatens us with such blunt language, shouldn't we take it seriously?

Tick tick tick...