Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 2, 2006
LAT Editors Diplomacy

Today’s Los Angeles Times editorial is exemplary for the current U.S. diplomacy thinking.

Fiddling While Iran Arms

– Russia and China delay meaningful U.N. pressure on Tehran –

THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL issued another ultimatum to Iran on Monday: Give up on your nuclear weapons program by Aug. 31 — or we’ll hold yet another meeting to discuss your fate.

Of course the U.N. security council issued nothing like this.

How could it, when neither the IAEA nor several spy agencies have been able to come up with
the slightes proof of the existance of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

The Security Council did demand from Iran to suspend research level enrichment of uranium for its civil nuclear program. A dubious demand, as Iran, as a member of the NPT, is entitled to do such research.

Starting from the fact free point of an Iranian weapons program, the LAT editors go one to whine how China and Russia are not in step with U.S. warmongering. Then they have this great idea how to change that:

Russia is particularly vulnerable. Last month, President Bush reversed decades of U.S. policy by backing a civilian nuclear power agreement with Moscow, under which spent fuel from U.S. reactors around the world might be stored in Russia. The deal, which could mean billions of dollars for Russia, isn’t tied to Moscow’s cooperation on Iranian sanctions, but the connection was implied. Negotiations could easily collapse if President Vladimir V. Putin’s regime continues to block sanctions.

This "billions of dollars for Russia" idea is based on a July 8 Washington Post story. There  the U.S. administration launched a pre-G8 trial-balloon for such a deal:

A nuclear cooperation agreement would clear the way for Russia to import and store thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors around the world, a lucrative business so far blocked by Washington. It could be used as an incentive to win more Russian cooperation on Iran.

But as reported three days later by Novosti, Reuters and Associate Press the Russians did shoot down that particular balloon immediately.

Russia does not have any plans to reprocess and store spent nuclear fuel from foreign countries, including the United States, an adviser to the federal nuclear agency official said Tuesday.
[…]
Igor Konyshev, a representative of an advisory body working with the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, said: "Russia has never imported, does not import and is not planning to import spent nuclear fuel. Officials who stated otherwise either do not understand the essence of the matter or are attempting to purposefully mislead the public."

But just like the administration, the LAT board does not need facts to pursue diplomacy. It does not understand that two are needed to make a deal. Instead, they have this great idea to blackmail Russia by blocking a business Russia has no interest to pursue at all.

In a month, Russian leaders will have to decide whether their economic and strategic interests lie with Iran or the West.

When the Russians will have decided that, be sure to read the LAT editorial on how treacherous Russia behaved when Putin backtracked form his offer to pay big bucks for valuable U.S. radioactive waste. And how China will have to be punished for that by nuking Tehran.

Comments

Excellent post b!

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 2 2006 16:53 utc | 1

C’mon, the LAT editorials features man clown Max Boot as a regular columnist. How the hell can anyone take that paper seriously?

Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Aug 2 2006 17:27 utc | 2

you are so on top of it b. are you cross posting this ?

Posted by: annie | Aug 2 2006 18:19 utc | 3

Pound, thrust, hammer, snatch,… – the Olympian Israelis of the media.

Posted by: biklett | Aug 2 2006 18:24 utc | 4

Very good work, b. I have been following this one, too, with amusement.
Do you ever go to this site? It appears to be a pro-Russian aggregator of predominantly corporate press news relevant to Russia’s viewpoint. Not all of it is up to snuff, but the majority is.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 2 2006 19:10 utc | 5

Two new leaders came to the world stage in the Middle East in the last year: one had been named a tyrant but has not so far committed any actions to justify this, while the other has committed many tyrannical actions and is not named a tyrant (by the US/UK regimes at least).
Of course, I’m talking about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and fanatic Israeli President Ehud Olmert.
From the start, the West had Ahmadinejad down as a hardliner, then accused him of being a hostage taker and all sorts of other things that proved to be false later. Anything to do with Ahmadinejad was called hardline, fanatic, etc. Ahmadinejad eventually said he had got the worst abuse of any Iranian leader ever and the tirades against him continued. Eventually, he faced off the criticism with his views on Israel, the West’s hypocracy and double standards and the rest. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad has not attacked another country, has not repressed his own country [as would be claimed] and has not murdered thousands.
Ehud Olmert, on the other hand, was called a moderate by the West (Netanyahu being the hardliner). However, Olmert proved what he really was after a few quite months by invading Lebanon in actions that would put the “hardline” Netanyahu to shame. His tyrannical actions have not been seem for many a long day in Israel, and are only comparable to the actions of Milosevic in Kosovo in 1999.
While the US constantly criticises Iran and others who are not actively invading other peoples, it supports Israel’s fanatical foreign policy (dubbed Zionism by many and called Jewish Nazism by others). When Saddam and Milosevic acted exactly as Olmert did back in 1990 and 1999 respectively, they had to go. Israel and not Iran should be the US’s next candidate for regime change: Olmert is the new Milosevic and that’s official.

Posted by: The Tyrant Identifier | Aug 2 2006 19:22 utc | 6

Following up on Malooga and TTI,
Olmert: what part of Genocide am I not making clear?
All the population which is the power base of the Hezbollah in Lebanon was displaced,” he said.

Posted by: citizen | Aug 2 2006 19:58 utc | 7

@Malooga #5
I visited a similar site immediately prior to and during the invasion of Iraq… it disappeared sometime in May 2003 I believe… I once got a nasty reply from someone at the DoD to one of my posts.
Do you think it is legit, or is it part of US psyops?

Posted by: crone | Aug 2 2006 21:54 utc | 8

crone- i used to check that site you refer to all the time back in 2003. russian military intel (?) analyses coming in translated by somebody named venik. there was a regular coven of trolls/wingers that used to hang in the comments section, but it was a decent source of up-to-date reports not always/yet covered in the u.s. & very active for a bit. can’t recall how well all the intel there panned out, but it was a hotspot for a bit. then it finally shut down & i recall seeing at some point after that a post online from venik writing that he had relocated to the u.s. and wasn’t necessarily opposed to the war.

Posted by: b real | Aug 2 2006 22:21 utc | 9

Thanks for the links. And the post b, along with everything else you do.

Posted by: beq | Aug 3 2006 0:30 utc | 10

In today’s Financial Times Anatoly Karpov and other Russian luminaries in arts and sports have taken out a large advert asking the “foreign media” to start getting real about what they print about Russia, and offering their assistance to any journalist who’d like to talk to them about it!
Sounds like the LAT editorial board could use some of that help.

Posted by: Dismal Science | Aug 3 2006 16:30 utc | 11

The links are legit to corporate media articles. Therefore its value as an aggregator of things one might have missed. Russian articles are legit too. Some of the translations, and of course the trolls, are less than valuable. But even there, some of the economic debates can be interesting, if only because they run along such different lines and suppositions. I like the design of the site. I can go there once a week or so, skim everything in sixty seconds, open up the ten articles I am interested in, and be done quickly, unless there is something I want to pursue in depth. Putin, and his thinking intrigue me more than Bush and his.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 3 2006 17:19 utc | 12

“Putin, and his thinking intrigue me more than Bush and his.
@Malooga,
Mate I hate to state the bleedin obvious but that’s because Vlad the retailer does think, not only that, when his rise to power is written after his reign (I don’t like the man, but it does seem likely he will eventually resign rather than die in harness, unlike his predecessor absolute rulers of all of Russia), people will come to appreciate exactly what a brilliant game he played to get his gig of Lord of the Eastern World.
Years ago when my bro was just getting established as a byline TV journo (he had done about a decade in print, got a byline but TV starts ya back from scratch. So it took him a few years to get back to covering a story from go to whoa), one of his first ‘majors’ (for NZ that is, a gnat’s fart anywhere else) he did was a story on a really weird incident that still gets the paranoids trying to fit it into one of their pet theories.
The NZ Herald article I have linked to says toward the bottom of the page:
“A man with a striking resemblance to Russian President Vladimir Putin was present at the inquiry in Australia, and can be seen in newspaper photos accompanying Captain Vorobyvev to court.”
Now my bro is so cautious about committing himself to anything, that he, like too many journalists (imho), is capable of dismissing quite valid points of view that may ‘rock the boat’, yet less rigorous when the ‘facts’ reinforce a widely held belief.
He met the Russian Navy or merchant marine man in charge of the Russian Inquiry, it was never made clear exactly who the bloke was, but his name definitely wasn’t Vlad Putin.
Since then he has met the Russian President on a few occasions esp when he was posted to europe a few short years ago and swears that the ‘admiral’ or whatever and Putin are one and the same person.
What does it mean? I dunno; the Mikhail Lermontov sank when I was long gone from these shores yet even when I came back to live here more than a decade later, ppl would still have theories but no real answers.
The point about Putin is that he sailed under the radar for a long time before Russians, much less anyone outside Russia in intelligence or poltical/economic analysis, had the slightest idea of his existence.
I suspect the prime ministers who had to offside Boris the bacchanalian, pre Vlad deciding the time was right for him, were put into the gig by Vlad.
Their job was to take the fall for the starving people on the streets, while keeping the path clear for Vlad the retailer. Many outside Russia will have forgotten because this was such a chaotic time, but there were four other Prime Ministers to play offsider to Boris as president in the 18 months preceeding Vlad’s tenure.
He stayed PM just long enough to grease the rails for Boris’s departure, then took the gig. Remember when the ‘world’s only surviving superpower’ claimed Vlad was the best thing since sliced bread?
Bwhahahaha! Surely one of these days a US politician will not only know his/her history, which is a big ask in itself, they will understand it.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 3 2006 23:33 utc | 13

very interesting, debs.
I remember once putin appeared on NPR and took calls live in english for one hour, and never missed a cultural beat, in addition to sounding sensible, and entertaining at the same time. in english. one hour. off the cuff. bush couldn’t do that, but thats obvious. clinton could, but not in russian.
the guy is pretty sharp…
he has had some flubs, but generally every move has been forward and genius. Ideology and politics aside, he is simply fun to watch, like looking over a great chess players shoulder.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 4 2006 4:14 utc | 14

I wonder, wonder, wonder if, like Poland, the Soviet Union will make it back onto the map one day.
Just wondering.

Posted by: Dismal Science | Aug 5 2006 21:24 utc | 15