Tweet
From the White House’s transcript of remarks made by Presidents Obama and Medvedev in Singapore, here’s what Medvedev had to say about Iran:
Another topic we discussed with President Obama is Iran. Indeed, recently we’ve had a series of consultations where both parties participated. We have reached certain results, but I believe that, thanks to our joint efforts, this process did not stop, did not become a stumbling stone which is impossible to bypass. It is still underway. But nonetheless, we’re still not satisfied with the pace of advancement of the process.
And I hope that as a result of our joint efforts with Iran, we will be able to reach agreements we’ve anticipated earlier and Iranian program will be peaceful and will not raise as many questions as our countries and the international community has at the moment. But to reach that, certain efforts are yet to be taken.
At the same time, as reasonable politicians, I hope we understand that any process must be terminant. Negotiation process is not for the pleasure of the process itself, but it is done in order to reach practical, specific outcomes. In this case, our goal is clear: it is transparent, up-to-date, peaceful program — not a program that would raise questions or concerns from the international community. We’re prepared to work further and I hope that our joint work will yield in positive results. In case we fail, the other options remain on the table in order to move the process in a different direction.
Note the lack of discussion of potential consequences for Iran if the process ends without the P5+1 nations being satisfied that Iran’s nuclear program won’t generate a weapon. In September, following a meeting with Obama in New York, Medvedev for the first time discussed circumstances under which Russia would back multilateral economic sanctions against Iran. The White House hailed it as a victory of presidential engagement. Since then, Iran has acknowledged a previously-undisclosed nuclear facility at Qom and equivocated on an offer to enrich its uranium in Russia and France. And yet Medvedev declined to reiterate his potential support for a sanctions regime. An insignificant omission or a sign that P5+1 unity is fraying?
Update: In fairness, Helene Cooper, who’s traveling with Obama, read the reference to impatience as a sign of sanctions still being broached. And I guess that you could read Medvedev’s line “in case we fail, the other options remain on the table” as a sanctions reference. Still, I was struck by the lack of Medvedev’s reiterated explicit reference.
5 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Sanctions won’t ‘work’. European nations trade heavily with Iran, Russia and Iran share a border and a lot of commerce and China is, among much other investment, developing 3 major natural gas deposits in Iran. The only sanctions that might have any ‘bite’ whatsoever are on refined petroleum products (China supplies a great deal of Iran’s gasoline), and Iran is working to quickly close the gap on their refining capacity. In addition, whenever you sanction a product class you create an opportunity for smuggling, which ultimately require you to stop and search on the high seas and implement some kind of border enforcement regime, and let’s at least be honest and recognize that’s not going to happen.
So all this pushing for “crippling sanctions” has to be considered in light of the history of sanctions – that being they seldom work on a regime that is willing to allow it’s population to suffer due to the international sanctions imposed. And what options remain if sanctions don’t result in Iran’s leadership agreeing to cease enrichment and turn over their nuclear energy program to external parties? It doesn’t seem likely that at that point there would be a return to negotiations, so sanctions are a last one-way step to war.
If you want war with Iran, if you think war with Iran will serve the security interests of the US, Israel, Europe and the Gulf Region, if you think the economic consequences of a war with Iran will be worth the result, and if you believe that a war will ultimately prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, then it would make sense to launch that war now, today, as every day Iran becomes better able to fight the war and retaliate against her aggressors.
Madness. The only reasonable approach is to accept that Iran will develop nuclear energy generation, master the fuel cycle and very likely have a weapons program in the Japan model, and work with Iran under the NPT and international treaties to keep the program as peaceful as possible. To do that the west needs to reduce the military pressure on Iran in order to reduce the perceived need for nuclear weapons, and continue a serious diplomatic dialog at least until Iran diverts fissile materials and opts out of the NPT.
A war with Iran has ugly, far-reaching consequences for America, Europe, Japan and the gulf region, and will have virtually no long-term positive offsetting results. Any step toward a war that would be fought for political reasons is crazy, like driving toward a cliff but assuming you will never actually get there…
mikey
Perhaps if you examine Iran’s economic structure a bit, you might be able to come up with some sanctions aimed at those sectors run by the military/paramilitary/families of the powerful and unlikely to result in general starvation of the populace.
Hmmm. Since you are once again prepared to operate on the assumption that your expertise vastly exceeds mine, perhaps you might provide an example or two and place them in a historical context that demonstrates they might have any actual impact on the regime’s choices around the nuclear program…
mikey
I doubt that you or I or very many other people could determine which external things would have actual impact on the Iranian regime’s choices.
Beside refined petroleum products, which you posit as possibly effective but leading to interdiction, sanctions targeting banking and telecommunications, are possibilities.
(no disrespect was meant, mikey.)