Obama Must Take a Harder Line Against Iran
Last week in Pittsburgh, history was written. A step was made towards a new world order. The G-20, and not the G-7 major Western industrial powers, will now determine the global economic policy.
The new role of the G-20 means that the West is weakened and that new economies such as Russia and China are rising in power. World leaders noted that dramatic changes in the global economy are not always reflected in the global architecture for economic cooperation. This has changed since last week.
This also includes an increased influence of emerging economies in the International Monetary Fund IMF. The world leaders have already made promises about it in their final declaration. They want a change in the voting against the benefit of rich countries and in favor of the emerging economies and developing countries. And the same should be applicable to the World Bank.
That this development marginalizes the European voice is clear. The G-7 continues, but will be a club where the positions of Western countries are aligned under American leadership. More voting weight to countries like China in the IMF and the World Bank is at the expense of the European vote.
In practice, this has already been noticed. President Obama showed little interest in the European voice when, in the run up to the G-20, he decided to terminate the anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. That move was primarily aiming to spawn energy giant Russia into part of the new world order. Obama needs the support of the Kremlin for a new agreement by end of the year that further curbs the number of intercontinental nuclear missiles held by Russia and America. He also needs the Kremlin to solve the Iran issue. Three weeks ago when the U.S. president tossed the missile shield into the trash, he stated that the Iranian threat against America is less severe than under Bush. But in Pittsburgh, he again pleaded for tougher penalties because Iran appears to have a second nuclear power station. In the background, Israel hints that it will bomb Iranian facilities if national security calls for it. But for now, the Israelis give America the benefit of the doubt by accepting Obama's double strategy.
It seems to me that the probability that this strategy will work, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, is not too large. I can only guess what Israel would do. What is clear, though, is that any Israeli attack could have dramatic consequences, such as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz with mines, which will risk the oil supply to parts of the world. It is also highly uncertain whether an Israeli attack would stop or delay Iran's nuclear program. It seems intelligence data are too unreliable, according to the public knowledge of a new enrichment plant and the debate about how far Iran is removed from a nuclear weapon.
Certainly the new Iranian plant, in one blow, derailed Obama's policy of rapprochement. This means that Americans must choose a harder line.
In Pittsburgh, history was written because the contours of a new world order were presented. But the question is, whether the emerging countries of the new world order, such as China and Russia, are prepared to solve the old world order problems together with America. China depends on Iran's oil and gas. And Russia does not award America any diplomatic successes.
The new role of the G-20 means that the West is weakened and that new economies such as Russia and China are rising in power. World leaders noted that dramatic changes in the global economy are not always reflected in the global architecture for economic cooperation. This has changed since last week.
This also includes an increased influence of emerging economies in the International Monetary Fund IMF. The world leaders have already made promises about it in their final declaration. They want a change in the voting against the benefit of rich countries and in favor of the emerging economies and developing countries. And the same should be applicable to the World Bank.
That this development marginalizes the European voice is clear. The G-7 continues, but will be a club where the positions of Western countries are aligned under American leadership. More voting weight to countries like China in the IMF and the World Bank is at the expense of the European vote.
In practice, this has already been noticed. President Obama showed little interest in the European voice when, in the run up to the G-20, he decided to terminate the anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. That move was primarily aiming to spawn energy giant Russia into part of the new world order. Obama needs the support of the Kremlin for a new agreement by end of the year that further curbs the number of intercontinental nuclear missiles held by Russia and America. He also needs the Kremlin to solve the Iran issue. Three weeks ago when the U.S. president tossed the missile shield into the trash, he stated that the Iranian threat against America is less severe than under Bush. But in Pittsburgh, he again pleaded for tougher penalties because Iran appears to have a second nuclear power station. In the background, Israel hints that it will bomb Iranian facilities if national security calls for it. But for now, the Israelis give America the benefit of the doubt by accepting Obama's double strategy.
It seems to me that the probability that this strategy will work, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, is not too large. I can only guess what Israel would do. What is clear, though, is that any Israeli attack could have dramatic consequences, such as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz with mines, which will risk the oil supply to parts of the world. It is also highly uncertain whether an Israeli attack would stop or delay Iran's nuclear program. It seems intelligence data are too unreliable, according to the public knowledge of a new enrichment plant and the debate about how far Iran is removed from a nuclear weapon.
Certainly the new Iranian plant, in one blow, derailed Obama's policy of rapprochement. This means that Americans must choose a harder line.
In Pittsburgh, history was written because the contours of a new world order were presented. But the question is, whether the emerging countries of the new world order, such as China and Russia, are prepared to solve the old world order problems together with America. China depends on Iran's oil and gas. And Russia does not award America any diplomatic successes.
The “missile shield” never had anything to do with Iran but was always the neocon’s diplomatic style of sticking a thumb in the eye of Russia, along with fomenting the Georgian invasion of Russia.
We sane Americans are glad our government is at least moving towards a foreign policy that doesn’t antagonize both friends and foe alike.
I’ll put more stock in the inspection report of the IAEA (that Iran is a legal party to) than the breathless reporting of the contrived contents on a CIA owned laptop in the New York Times, or the perpetual war mongering of the Cheneys/Boltons/et al’s and their anti-Muslim allies of the world.
Give peace a chance, will ya?
I meant the Georgian invasion of Ossetia, of course, and yes there were those of us in the U.S. who knew it at the time despite more breathless U.S. media reporting since we long ago gave up on the pro-war corporate owned U.S. media, some of whom are careful their media division don’t endanger the profits of their war machine division.
There was significant progress last week in talks with Iran, not that one would know it from the media, after multiple overtures since 9/11 were rejected or ignored by the Bush Administration.
Trust but verify, and respect the sovereign rights of all nations. Every problem looks like a nail when you’re a hammer.