ropean states. These latter hope for an Iranian “lifeline” to help them avoid the use of force that would conflict with their liberal outlook, which conceals a genuine fear of the failure of force, exposing them as weak. They therefore continue giving Iran one last “time out” to agree to their demands, as with the two week extension they just gave after the ultimatum deadline at the end of August expired.

The United States wishes to maintain a firm, clear line against Iranian nuclear armament without confronting its

Without massive active intervention by China, Iran’s giant oil consumer, and Russia, Teheran’s giant supplier of arms and expertise, Western sanctions against Iran lack any genuine operative significance and may remain empty bluster

We recently saw another flurry of international diplomacy between Teheran, Europe and the United States regarding Iran’s nuclear program. In the wings, the ostensibly minor actors, China and Russia with their considerable economic interests in Iran, put the “brakes” on any aggressive measures against Iran.

It seems clear to most of the world’s countries that this is a critical test of the international community’s resolve and ability to deal with states that develop non-conventional capabilities and threaten its security and peace. In theory, the Security Council should lead the way as it is the operative arm of the UN. It is mandated to operate to defend the peace under Section 7 of the UN Charter. Staring in the face of the agencies confronting this problem is the Council’s failure to curb North Korea, which is a resonating and threatening example of the helplessness to prevent nuclear armament by a “rogue” nation.

Observing Teheran’s diplomatic conduct, Iran has apparently learned her lessons well from North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il, and understands the weaknesses of the international system as reflected in the simple Iranian zigzags and basic tango of “one step forward, two steps back”. Through a combination of “Agreed” / “Not Agreed” answers to the compromises proposed in their negotiations with the Europeans and Americans, they have successfully pursued a policy of divide and conquer for years. Thus, while declaring that they will never surrender their nuclear program, when they sense that international sanctions are imminent (and they are indeed closer than ever), they ensure their message stresses their agreement to suspend the nuclear program “in the future”.

Though very familiar with the Iranian dance, following years of fruitless negotiation, Teheran’s vague conformity manages to “excite” the European states. These latter hope for an Iranian “lifeline” to help them avoid the use of force that would conflict with their liberal outlook, which conceals a genuine fear of the failure of force, exposing them as weak. They therefore continue giving Iran one last “time out” to agree to their demands, as with the two week extension they just gave after the ultimatum deadline at the end of August expired.

The United States wishes to maintain a firm, clear line against Iranian nuclear armament without confronting its

gressive measures against Iran.

It seems clear to most of the world’s countries that this is a critical test of the international community’s resolve and ability to deal with states that develop non-conventional capabilities and threaten its security and peace. In theory, the Security Council should lead the way as it is the operative arm of the UN. It is mandated to operate to defend the peace under Section 7 of the UN Charter. Staring in the face of the agencies confronting this problem is the Council’s failure to curb North Korea, which is a resonating and threatening example of the helplessness to prevent nuclear armament by a “rogue” nation.

Observing Teheran’s diplomatic conduct, Iran has apparently learned her lessons well from North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il, and understands the weaknesses of the international system as reflected in the simple Iranian zigzags and basic tango of “one step forward, two steps back”. Through a combination of “Agreed” / “Not Agreed” answers to the compromises proposed in their negotiations with the Europeans and Americans, they have successfully pursued a policy of divide and conquer for years. Thus, while declaring that they will never surrender their nuclear program, when they sense that international sanctions are imminent (and they are indeed closer than ever), they ensure their message stresses their agreement to suspend the nuclear program “in the future”.

Though very familiar with the Iranian dance, following years of fruitless negotiation, Teheran’s vague conformity manages to “excite” the European states. These latter hope for an Iranian “lifeline” to help them avoid the use of force that would conflict with their liberal outlook, which conceals a genuine fear of the failure of force, exposing them as weak. They therefore continue giving Iran one last “time out” to agree to their demands, as with the two week extension they just gave after the ultimatum deadline at the end of August expired.

The United States wishes to maintain a firm, clear line against Iranian nuclear armament without confronting its

curb North Korea, which is a resonating and threatening example of the helplessness to prevent nuclear armament by a “rogue” nation.

Observing Teheran’s diplomatic conduct, Iran has apparently learned her lessons well from North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il, and understands the weaknesses of the international system as reflected in the simple Iranian zigzags and basic tango of “one step forward, two steps back”. Through a combination of “Agreed” / “Not Agreed” answers to the compromises proposed in their negotiations with the Europeans and Americans, they have successfully pursued a policy of divide and conquer for years. Thus, while declaring that they will never surrender their nuclear program, when they sense that international sanctions are imminent (and they are indeed closer than ever), they ensure their message stresses their agreement to suspend the nuclear program “in the future”.

Though very familiar with the Iranian dance, following years of fruitless negotiation, Teheran’s vague conformity manages to “excite” the European states. These latter hope for an Iranian “lifeline” to help them avoid the use of force that would conflict with their liberal outlook, which conceals a genuine fear of the failure of force, exposing them as weak. They therefore continue giving Iran one last “time out” to agree to their demands, as with the two week extension they just gave after the ultimatum deadline at the end of August expired.

The United States wishes to maintain a firm, clear line against Iranian nuclear armament without confronting its

with the Europeans and Americans, they have successfully pursued a policy of divide and conquer for years. Thus, while declaring that they will never surrender their nuclear program, when they sense that international sanctions are imminent (and they are indeed closer than ever), they ensure their message stresses their agreement to suspend the nuclear program “in the future”.

Though very familiar with the Iranian dance, following years of fruitless negotiation, Teheran’s vague conformity manages to “excite” the European states. These latter hope for an Iranian “lifeline” to help them avoid the use of force that would conflict with their liberal outlook, which conceals a genuine fear of the failure of force, exposing them as weak. They therefore continue giving Iran one last “time out” to agree to their demands, as with the two week extension they just gave after the ultimatum deadline at the end of August expired.

The United States wishes to maintain a firm, clear line against Iranian nuclear armament without confronting its

ropean states. These latter hope for an Iranian “lifeline” to help them avoid the use of force that would conflict with their liberal outlook, which conceals a genuine fear of the failure of force, exposing them as weak. They therefore continue giving Iran one last “time out” to agree to their demands, as with the two week extension they just gave after the ultimatum deadline at the end of August expired.

The United States wishes to maintain a firm, clear line against Iranian nuclear armament without confronting its European “allies”, and is dragged into endlessly waiting for the Teheran mullahs to reconsider. In its distress, Washington is considering forming a coalition of the “willing to impose sanctions” – along the lines of the “coalition of the willing” against Iraq.

However, even if the diplomatic tango in its present form ends, and even if wide-scale international sanctions are eventually imposed on Iran, it is likely to recur, in a game in which the cancellation of sanctions are offered in return for suspending uranium enrichment.

This is fine for a political science textbook. However, without massive, active intervention by China, Iran’s giant oil consumer, and by Russia, Teheran’s giant supplier of arms and expertise, Western sanctions against Iran lack any genuine operative significance and may remain empty bluster.

Serious concern is generally felt regarding the efficacy of economic and political sanctions on different states around the world, for example Cuba, Syria, North Korea, and Iran. We can learn from Iraq, Serbia, or South Africa, that in fact only internal revolution or outside military intervention like a blow to the heart of the tyrannical regime, can effect real change in dark states like the ayatollahs.

At the same time, the practicability of a military move against Iran is unclear. As the sands of time run out on the ideological American government’s worldview and activities – a larger question mark arises regarding the possible timing of an American strike against Iran – perhaps as the last chord of George Bush Junior’s administration. But still, without continuity by the president who inherits Bush’s crown, and without steady massive international pressure on Iran, this move may fail and might only prompt a drive towards nuclear capability in revenge and to restore national pride.

Strategic Implications for Israel

At this stage, it seems that in the coming years, Israel, as America’s proxy, will be busy licking its wounds after the conflict with Hizbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon. It may be deterred from taki