Did she have a wider agenda?

Didn’t Russia and Iran have joint military maneuvers in the Caspian Sea last summer? Russia and China are quickly forming new military and joint economic agreements. China and Iran are doing their best to form new business joint ventures. Then, to top it off, they and others probably really are having secret meetings to figure out how far they can go to dump the dollar as the currency for oil trade.

President Obama stopped the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. So, I wonder if she isn’t trying to reassure Russia that we are sincere about that move and she was exploring additional ways to bridge a communication gap and even search for new ways to form a few joint agreements between Russia and ourselves. After all, who knows what the eventual consequences might be from an increasingly strong alliance between Russia, China, Iran as well as France and Arab countries.

Bob Spencer

What Stephen says seems so obvious to me but I have such a hard time understanding the national-security mindset. It seems to me to be so irrational, largely driven by domestic politics. A uni-polar legacy?

I think the word "disdain" is wrong. It's a perjorative interpretation not called for by the facts.

However, one has to understand that Russian clarity is a reflection of the fact that the US and Israel supported and armed Georgia for a mdnight, lethal and illegal attack against the Russian military.

Imagine, for a minute, the shoe on the other foot.

It was, in fact, a declaration of war that Russia has wisely put aside, but not forgotten.

For the record, the American resupply of the Georgia military has already begun.

There is no question that curbing Iran's nuclear program is one of the most important parts of President Obama's foreign-policy. Likewise, there is no doubt that lobbying the U.N. Security Council for tougher sanctions is probably the best option for Washington thus far (a military-strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would have a significantly destabilizing effect on the entire region, for both U.S. interests in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Israeli interests in the West Bank and Gaza Strip).

Yet, with that in mind, I am rather puzzled as to why American officials are so frustrated by Russia and China's behavior. Like Mr. Spencer has said, China and Russia are quickly establishing alliances among themselves and parts of the developing world to counter American influence in Asian affairs. China is expanding its presence in Latin America, Africa, and (of course) the Middle East while Russia seems intent on building up its own influence in its near-periphery (Iran included). Supporting tougher economic punishments on the Islamic Republic would severely contradict these efforts.

Not only would Moscow and Beijing lose a valuable trading-pipeline, but would also stop the much-needed revenue that is necessary for a healthy and sustaining national economy. We cannot underestimate Russia and China's relationship with Iran; the fourth-largest oil producer in the world.

China in particular would experience the difficulties and ramifications associated with Iranian sanctions. The country virtually sits on a dry-pit of land (natural-resource reference). Its economy is heavily dependent on foreign-sources of oil to keep its economy moving in the right direction. And of course, Beijing is desperately trying to expand Chinese power in every corner of the world. Taking this into account, what would happen if Hu Jintao decided to blindly follow the United States on the Security Council? The answer: all of the benefits that China has grown accustomed to would fall by the wayside.

It’s called the national-interest, and the concept has been around for over four centuries. Why the United States is so flabbergasted by Russia and China's reluctance is beyond comprehension. WHAT DID THEY EXPECT!!

http://depetris.wordpress.com

What about the possibility that Sec. Clinton wanted to show Iran that the US is not sitting around just waiting. Maybe her visit to Mr. Lavrov was in fact a sign for Iran to see that if no progress is made, the US is still working on alternatives, such as sanctions?

I'm with the view there must be more to this visit. The obvious press concern with Iran is what probably drew forth those remarks. Team Obama knows better, even tho Hillary is steering her own boat when she leaves town. Or maybe not even then; She's shaping up as quite the team-player and seems comfortable at it.

No. There are alot of other things of concern, although it will be done through staff work as was noted. What could have drawn her there, which makes sense, is hauling water for our 51rst state; to stress to them how serious Israel is about this business. Keep the big picture in mind, and remember Netanyahu's leaked visit. I wouldn't be surprised the main purpose was to underline his message to the Russians.

Frankly, I don't know which answer would worry me more. If it's the former, she's getting very bad advice from her Russia experts, who clearly have no idea how Russia's leaders perceive their own interests.

Who are Clinton's lead advisors on foreign policy in general and Russia in particular in the state department? Considering her and Bill's penchant for long-term loyalty in terms of aides, it's possible she's carrying over an old coterie of Russia hands who have outdated views.

It strikes me as hard to miss that the Russians weren't going to go "quid pro quo" on Iran in exchange for dismantling the Polish-Czech Missile Shield, seeing as how they'd been denying any link between the two repeatedly for months. But considering how it kept propping up in the media, I suppose it's possible that people did believe that it was a serious possibility - or that the Russians could be brought around, in spite of strong commercial and technological ties they've been cultivating with Iran.

brandishing threats is probably the best way to derail them before any additional progress is made.

The only problem with that is that the US has been swinging around the threat of new sanctions for literally months now, so it's not as if this is some sudden bolt out of the blue that would have the Iranians going "Aha! So it's a lie after all!"

unless of course she wanted to be seen to be stiffed in public.

"we did everything we could. we went the extra mile. but these people. . . "

Perhaps someone should inform Secretary Clinton of the "real situation" of independent journalism in the American theaters of endless war... or about Iran... or for that matter, heaven forbid, "independent journalism" in mainstream USA.

I think that the Obama administration is suffering somewhat from a Bush foreign policy strategy hangover that was two pronged in nature while attempting to inject their own new call for engagement and diplomacy.

If you look at what has been going on recently, the US is sending mixed signals like the Bush administration did. Just following the nuclear agreement that was made in the recent low level talks with Iran, the Obama administration requested funding for new bunker busters and subsequently sought sanctions from Russia.

I would speculate that a few things may be at play here.

1) The US is not taking the Iranians at their word when it comes to their agreement to release their lower enriched nuclear materials.

2) Russia is not taking the US at its word that it wants to settle this matter diplomatically and fear that further sanctions will lead to enhanced legitimacy for military use further down the road. While I do not believe that the US will use military action against Iran, we must keep in mind that Russia exists in a perpetual state of distrust when it comes to American intent.

3) Iran is merely buying time to further its nuclear programs through the same accept and stall tactics that Saddam Hussein used throughout the '90s.

Perhaps all are happening at the same time.

You say, Mr. Walt, "If the latter, she has no business wasting time and effort on a lost cause and giving Lavrov the opportunity to score points by stiffing her in public."

I disagree. This administration is all about changing the way international relations are handled. No more petulance, one-upmanship. It's okay to let the other guy look tough, score a few points. We'll get through it if HRC suffers a little snub from her Russian counterpart.

One observation made during the campaign was that Obama is an excellent counter-puncher.

"There are undoubtedly people in the United States (and Iran) who would like to see that happen, but I didn't think Hillary was one of them."

I'm surprised that you are surprised. Did you really think Hillary was not "one of them"? Given what she has said, on numerous occasions, Hillary is/was the loudest among "them."

Cheerio.

Bananastan

If you don't think this is the right time to impose sanctions on Iran, when do you think the right time is??? Iran has continually lied to the UN, doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks, and basically poking a sharp stick in the eye of the US. I'm sorry, but if sanctions are not implemented, it gives the Iranians the go ahead to in essence continue to lie, obfuscate and laugh.