Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Russia this week and appears to be coming back empty-handed.
Clinton’s most urgent action item was obtaining support for international sanctions on Iran, as a means to thwart Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. President Dmitri Medvedev said last month that, “sometimes sanctions are inevitable,” which was seen by some observers as support for a tougher stance on Iran. But, during Mrs. Clinton’s trip, she found no further support of this position from either Prime Minister Vladimir Putin or Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. In fact, Lavrov now says that sanctions during the current standoff would be “counterproductive.”
Clinton undoubtedly received renewed pledges of support from the Russians for secure supply lines through the Kremlim’s sphere of influence to U.S. troops in Afghanistan – a critical need as the U.S. military prepares for another cold winter there. But this was already in the bag.
The State Department will likely try to squeeze some positive spin out of the reported progress on strategic arms reductions. However, President Barack Obama and Medvedev agreed back in July to a preliminary deal to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). With START set to expire in December, and with an agreement in both countries’ interests, progress should not be seen as the fruits of Mrs. Clinton’s deft diplomacy.
That Mrs. Clinton is returning stateside without exacting any significant concessions from the Russians – particularly on Iran sanctions – should come as no surprise. When Obama announced in September that he would unilaterally scrap plans for a long-planned missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, he coughed up Washington’s only bargaining chip.
In short, the Kremlin got what it wanted. There’s nothing left to negotiate.
15 responses so far
1 sinz54 // Oct 14, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Yep.
Cleverly buried in the middle of a long NY Times article on Russian political rights, is the news that Foreign Minister Lavrov specifically rejected sanctions on Iran.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/world/europe/15diplo.html?hpw
But this is how the face-saving game is played: Now with the cooperation of the sympathetic NY Times, Hillary can come home and tell the American people that she really talked tough with the Russian leaders on political rights. Even though that was clearly not her main mission in the first place.
2 balconesfault // Oct 14, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Since a nuclear Iran would be a far more significant threat to Russia, than it would be to the US … why are we acting like this is OUR problem?
In short, why is the US internalizing every threat in the world between any two states … this seems like an issue for the various “-stans” to worry about, for perhaps India or Pakistan to worry about, for the Saudis and other gulf states to worry about, and yes – for Russia to worry about, and Israel to worry about.
When those nations start footing a major portion of the US defense budget, perhaps we should worry about it more than they do.
3 Reason60 // Oct 14, 2009 at 3:13 pm
” When Obama announced in September that he would unilaterally scrap plans for a long-planned missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, he coughed up Washington’s only bargaining chip.”
So THATS what it was. a bargaining chip to be surrendered at an appropriate time.
I heard tell it was a vital shield against Iranian missiles striking Europe, without which we would all be in danger.
4 Vladimir Putin, No Sanctions on Iran: Obama Sold Out Poland for Nothing » Right Pundits // Oct 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm
[...] on Iran, he said there would be not threat of sanctions on Iran. As could be predicted, Clinton immediately capitulated. My goodness, we are surrendering faster than France these [...]
5 SFTor1 // Oct 14, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Is the GOP ready to get its head out of the Cold War mindset any time soon?
Or are the needs of the defense industry so paramount that we always need an enemy?
6 sinz54 // Oct 14, 2009 at 4:45 pm
balconesfault:
1. 2/3 of the world’s oil transits through the Persian Gulf. (It’s called “Persian” for a reason.) Once Iran develops nukes, they or their Hezbollah proteges can take pot-shots at supertankers without fear of military retaliation. Iran’s own economists have estimated that such a confrontation in the Persian Gulf would send world oil prices past $300 a barrel. Care to estimate what that would do to the U.S. economy?
2. The U.S. is committed to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel–and Iran has threatened to wipe out Israel.
3. The possession of nukes by Iran would be the end of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would demand their own Sunni nuclear deterrents.
The U.S. is NOT “internalizing every threat in the world between two states”. But anyone who thinks the U.S. can ignore the Middle East is a fool.
The Middle East and the Pacific Rim, are America’s vital strategic interests.
7 sinz54 // Oct 14, 2009 at 4:46 pm
sftor1:
Go down to Lower Manhattan and take a good look at Ground Zero.
8 sinz54 // Oct 14, 2009 at 4:49 pm
What’s interesting about liberals,
is that they are big fans of signing treaties.
But not of enforcing treaties.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been a fan of lefties all over the world.
But the possession of nukes by Iran would blow a fatal hole in the NPT. The fact that a nation led by a certifiable maniac who denies the Holocaust could develop nukes and get away with it, would mean that the NPT or any other international treaty to restrict the possession of nuclear weapons would be so much toilet paper.
And there are a lot more fruitcakes in this world besides Ahmedinejad. It would be impossible to deny nukes to any of them after Iran.
9 balconesfault // Oct 14, 2009 at 5:44 pm
1. 2/3 of the world’s oil transits through the Persian Gulf. (It’s called “Persian” for a reason.) Once Iran develops nukes, they or their Hezbollah proteges can take pot-shots at supertankers without fear of military retaliation. Iran’s own economists have estimated that such a confrontation in the Persian Gulf would send world oil prices past $300 a barrel. Care to estimate what that would do to the U.S. economy?
Do you care to estimate what the price of oil will be if the US strikes Iran?
2. The U.S. is committed to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel–and Iran has threatened to wipe out Israel.
You forget the if there … that being if Israel were to strike Iran …
3. The possession of nukes by Iran would be the end of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would demand their own Sunni nuclear deterrents.
Yep. Dangerous game, indeed. We unleashed it in part when we allowed Israel to develop a nuke, since we now are in the rhetorical corner of telling the Muslim world that only one Middle Eastern country is allowed to own a nuke – the one run by Jews. If you don’t understand how that is a patent insult to the Muslim world, you’re not really good at the empathy thing.
Nonetheless, I still fail to see why Russia should have less concern with Saudis and Egyptians and many of the other countries that can strike Russia with intermediate range missles developing nuclear capability. We’re playing the fools ourselves if we allow Putin to make this a “Bad US” versus “Good Russia” situation for those countries, while actually spending our resources and chits to take measures that will enhance Russia’s security.
10 SFTor1 // Oct 14, 2009 at 6:24 pm
sinz says: “Go down to Lower Manhattan and take a good look at Ground Zero.”
So Iran was behind 9/11? I thought it was our friends from Saudi Arabia and Egypt (mainly) who orchestrated that one.
The idea that Iran would take “potshots” at oil tankers makes no sense to me. So then they get bombed, and then what? They destroy Israel with their nukes? And then we destroy them with our nukes? Sinz, you are talking as if Iran is run by a bunch of trigger-happy madmen. This is not the case. The leaders of Iran are quite pragmatic (Ahmadenijad excluded, but he is insignificant.)
11 SFTor1 // Oct 14, 2009 at 6:30 pm
The idea that Iran has threatened to “wipe out Israel” is a canard. What Iran wants is an end to the Jewish state, replaced by one where Israelis and Palestinians share the territory. I think it’s something about the Palistinians having been there first. That may not be to your liking either, but it is far different from the presumed position.
12 agentprovocateur // Oct 14, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Go down to Lower Manhattan and take a good look at Ground Zero.
So the way to fight terrorist threats like al-Qaeda is to follow the same playbook used during the Cold War? Brillant. Just brillant.
It is especially hilarious to be told by neocons like William Kristol that Iran is such a clear and present danger that must be dealt with immediately. The track record of these jokers is not all that reliable.
13 sinz54 // Oct 15, 2009 at 9:59 am
agentprovocateur:
We were never attacked on our home soil during the Cold War.
If Russian bombers had bombed New York City during the Cold War, you and I would not be here posting today. Because most of the Northern Hemisphere would be in ruins.
As I said before, liberals wave collective security, the NPT, and “international law” around like mantras.
But “international law,” like any other law, is useless without effective mechanisms for law enforcement.
That part, they ignore.
14 SFTor1 // Oct 15, 2009 at 11:49 am
Sinz: your idea of “mechanisms for law enforcement” is U.S. bombs. This is a fundamental flaw in your thinking. I don’t think you will be able to overcome it without some kind of reprogramming. Can you?
15 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 15, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Sinz wrote: “The U.S. is committed to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel–and Iran has threatened to wipe out Israel.”
I’ve asked this question of the conservative posters before, but I never get an answer. Why should the U.S. take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities in order to protect Israel when Israel is perfectly capable of taking out those capabilities itself?
Moreover, has anyone considered that a nuclear weapon in Iran may actually result in a reduction of aggression in the region? Iran would probably have way more to lose from an offensive use of its nuclear bomb than it could ever gain. That is not true of its promotion of terrorism. An Iranian bomb would cause everyone to be much less tolerant of any form of Iranian aggression. And, in return, the U.S. and Israel would probably be much less aggressive in the region as well.
I’m not advocating the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, but I am questioning whether a regional “right to bear arms” approach wouldn’t have the same cautionary effect it is presumed to have within the U.S.
You must log in to post a comment.