www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-ob...ov20,0,3865304.story

Russia and China will not go along with any serious sanctions against Iran that would jeopardize their economies and national interests, making such punitive efforts without universal global support exercises in futility.

Of course the US Congress can pass a ton of useless legislation and brainless resolutions, handsomely screwing ourselves and our allies who do business with the Iranians. We have demonstrated a penchant for such stupidities on multiple occasions.

The genesis of an Iranian solution resides in the "grand bargain" evolving between the US and N. Korea. As US pragmatism acquiesces to hard facts on the ground in the Korean peninsula, so the US will adjust to Iranian nuclear ambitions and regional hegemony.

Its just a matter of time.

mais oui!

Robster again with his prayers for "grand bargains" between the US and failing states (e.g. North Korea, Iran, etc.). How many put-downs must the Obama administration deliver before the Muslim terrorist apologists understand they're not appreciated?

Stalemate: How Obama's Iran Outreach Failed
www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1...l?xid=rss-topstories

Having concluded that President Obama's outreach has failed to halt Iran's nuclear program, the final weeks of 2009 find his Administration focused on mustering support for new sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Iran's rejection of the terms offered thus far by the U.S. and its partners has prompted Obama to largely revert to the Bush Administration's approach of ultimatums backed by sanctions — with little obvious prospect of producing a substantially different result...

...With both Obama and Ahmadinejad having been painted into corners, the deadlock is unlikely to be broken by the sanctions that are expected to be put in place in the coming months. Hawks will argue that's because Iran is intractably committed to building nuclear weapons; doves will say that diplomacy wasn't given a serious chance. And those who insisted on a time limit for diplomatic efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program will almost certainly do the same on sanctions. That could force Obama, in the next year or two, to either hit the proverbial "reset" button on Iran diplomacy, or else confront the narrower choice touted by Western hawks: bomb Iran, or Iran with the bomb.

China Signals Resistance to Iran Sanctions, Seeks Further Talks
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087...XK_aiCOjYA&pos=9

Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) -- China signaled resistance to any U.S. and European push for tougher United Nations sanctions on Iran, saying talks aimed at preventing its development of nuclear weapons should be given a chance to succeed.

“We ask for more time to be given and efforts to be made to see if we can reach some sort of breakthrough,” La Yifan, China’s envoy for Security Council and political affairs at the UN, said in an interview yesterday. “The door to diplomatic efforts is not completely slammed yet. Efforts should focus on trying to find a solution to the current impasse.”


U.S. House Passes Iran Gasoline Sanctions Bill
www.rferl.org/content/US_House_Passes_Ir...ns_Bill/1905105.html

...There is concern the bill could backfire by antagonizing U.S. trading partners and allies, hurting efforts to get multilateral action against Iran. Berman, speaking after the vote, said he was open to creating exceptions for companies from countries that have their own robust sanctions on Iran....

There is also worry the legislation could backfire on the United States if Iranian citizens blame America for supply shortages and higher gasoline prices that would likely result.

"This will unify the Iranian people against us," Representative Ron Paul said.

Some energy experts have said fuel sanctions on Iran would raise prices but not stop supplies because the country has porous borders and a history of smuggling petroleum products...

The last and only shot at coercing the Iranians was lost forever after the fall of Baghdad in mid April 2003. The US military should have immediately rolled eastward and conquered Iran, because the road to the Middle East lead thru Baghdad to Tehran. Not the insane, anal vision "that the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad." That penultimate loser creed informed US foreign policy and war making at great loss to Iraq and America in lives, treasure, global regard and power.

The Road to Jerusalem Goes Through Baghdad
www.counterpunch.org/fareed03142003.html

"Sometime around the late 1950s, American conservatives picked up a hitch-hiker on the road to power who wound up hijacking their movement....smear campaigns, race-baiting, expulsions, and enforced ideological conformity was imported to the Right via the neo-conservative influx."

Justin Raimondo, Antiwar.com

The right policy was not to have invaded Iraq at all. But if your going to gamble, you gamble it all. You don't half step and fiddle @#$% around as the Bush regime, neocons and fellow cabalists managed by the numbers in the early days of OIF. They didn't have the balls or the 'right stuff' to do what was required and finish the job. A stupendous screw-up that fell far short of conquest, permanently marrying the US into the quagmire of Middle Eastern affairs and politics.

An aerial bombardment of Iran is an exercise in futility, if its not followed up with a ground invasion of Iran. The long Iranian coastline in the Persian Gulf must be denied to the Iranians to prevent their interdiction of oil, especially the approaches to and after the Straits of Hormuz. This can only be accomplished by troops on the ground securing the territory. That will require a whole lot of troops the US doesn't have and Europeans will balk at supplying. Since the US didn't have the balls to conquer Iran in 2003 or anytime since, its a forgone conclusion the US won't tomorrow as the gamble and risks will be ever greater.

As for Israel, I'm all for letting those jerk-off artists do it. Those pussies have been threatening Iran with thermonuclear annihilation for years. Lets see if they got the balls to attack an opponent who can strike back. I bet when push comes to shove they'll back down, just like they did in Lebanon and before the city of Gaza at the decisive moment. After Obama has replayed all the loser hands he has been forced to play due to domestic politics and pressure, he will initiate another reset with Iranians along the path of diplomacy as he has done with Russia, China, N. Korea and others. There aren't any bad or worse options. Its the only road left to the US.

Robster continues to flail about in his attempts to cover his failed predictions on ME matters. It must grate on his delicate sensibilities to see reasonable people everywhere pushing for sanctions aimed at his beloved Persians. Robster's repeated assertions that sanctions won't work are, of course, reflected in commonplace opinion everywhere, but 'ster likes to tell us what everyone knows. Kind of like his ritual "bad, bad Bush" twaddle he puts forth to cover his support for continued US military presence in Muslim lands as favored by Bush/Cheney.

Today in Atol we have this -
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KL24Ak02.html
Afrasiabi is a reliable apologist for Iranian intransigence, but at least he doesn't indulge in racial attacks on the Zionists he opposes. Yes, Iran is now "nuclear capable," and it will likely acquire the means of delivering nukes in the not so distant future. And he dismisses (quite appropriately) the notion of a US/Iran "grand bargain" as trumpeted by Robster and other delusional folks.

As for 'ster's views on Israel, they are easily dismissed as the racist rantings of one who parroted the lie that Israeli soldiers killed Arabs in Palestine in order to harvest organs.

There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran
www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/opinion/24kup...r=2&pagewanted=1

...there are three compelling reasons that the United States itself should carry out the bombings. First, the Pentagon’s weapons are better than Israel’s at destroying buried facilities. Second, unlike Israel’s relatively small air force, the United States military can discourage Iranian retaliation by threatening to expand the bombing campaign. (Yes, Israel could implicitly threaten nuclear counter-retaliation, but Iran might not perceive that as credible.) Finally, because the American military has global reach, air strikes against Iran would be a strong warning to other would-be proliferators...

The New York Times leads the way in an editorial exhorting the US administration to bomb Iran. Bought whores in the US Congress, front groups like AIPAC and media mouth organs for Israel & Zionism are cranking up the pressure on Obama to do a 'Bush' on Iran. They think they got him right where they want him.