Iran Sanctions Could Fracture Coalition

[cal04]

It was always going to be tough for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to hold together her fragile coalition of world powers trying to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon has made that job harder

While Iran’s official response to the package of carrots from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China was, at 21 pages, voluminous, the key point is that Iran’s leaders did not agree to suspend enrichment of uranium, the central demand of the coalition.

Now the question is whether Ms. Rice, who returned from vacation this week and was studying Iran’s response, can keep the coalition together to take out their sticks against Iran.

That will not be easy, in part because the entire United Nations Security Council is supposed to vote on the sanctions package. While only the permanent members can veto, the rising fear, particularly among European diplomats, is that smaller countries on the Council are so angry over how the United States, and now France, have handled the Lebanon crisis that they will give Russia and China political cover to balk against imposing tough sanctions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/world/middleeast/23diplo.html?hp&ex=1156305600&en=72034b5b929cef3f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. Coalition? I think that is stretching the

definition a bit.

[necso]

2. We have to go back to square zero

with these guys; but this isn't as easy as it sounds -- because we've basically been going backwards.

Broad-scope negotiations (meaningful negotiations; here and elsewhere), no preconditions.

But suspending enrichment during these negotiations (without prejudice) would be a token of great weight.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

3. why should they do that?

I mean, really. Is there any evidence that their enrichment is not peaceful.

They see an energy crisis in the making, they are the ones with the oil, we should think about what we are going to do, and forget about what they are doing.