U.S. in a foreign policy corner on Iran
LA Times / Doyle McManus
14-Jun-2010 (one comment)

Last week, after 16 months of relentless effort, President Obama finally achieved one of his major foreign policy objectives: a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing stronger economic sanctions on Iran.

But it wasn't much of a victory. The resolution wasn't unanimous, which diluted its intended message. And the sanctions themselves are modest, watered down to secure support from Russia and China. Even Obama isn't promising much. "We know that the Iranian government will not change its behavior overnight," he said in a muted victory statement, "but (the U.N.) vote demonstrates the growing costs that will come with Iranian intransigence."

If sanctions are unlikely to produce rapid change in Iran, neither has the administration's other approach: engagement. When Obama entered office, critics mocked his offer to Iran of an outstretched hand as starry-eyed. But he made it clear all along that he didn't expect engagement to bear instant results. That's why he opted for a "two-track" policy: both engagement and sanctions.

>>>
recommended by IranMilitaryForum.net

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
پیام

I thought Iran's military could handle the threat!

by پیام on Tue Jun 15, 2010 02:22 AM PDT

The i.r. leaders you adore so much and their boosting up of their fire power made it so much easier for the US and it's allies to make a case against i.r.
You and your other nerdy friends on the net just helped them digging the grave for i.r. While people like me told you it was not wise to post video's of 40 year old fighter jets of you tube and by doing so showing the poor shape IRIAF is in, you just kept dreaming and calling us traitors and what not. Well this is what you get for not reasoning before trying to hang out the bully.


  •