Ultimately for President Obama, the game is up. As one always believed, the US President will continue his negotiations at attempting to formulate a coalition of the willing to impose economic sanctions against Iran; thus in a sense, dragging his feet until such a time that, Iran joins the nuclear club, and it becomes impossible to consider even the talk of military action.
khairi janbek.paris/france

Steve,
off topic but Cohen at WaPo takes a dig at you: just fyi

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/12/AR2010041203296.html

Re. Iran -- Some western governments’ views are out of line with the views of their own intelligence services.

As the US IC has repeatedly said, Iran seeks to keep open the option to have a weapons capability — not that it has a nuclear weapons production program.

Annual Threat Assessment:

http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20100202_testimony.pdf

“We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

And the “721” report:

http://www.dni.gov/reports/2009_721_Report.pdf

“…we do not know whether Iran will eventually decide to produce nuclear weapons.”

Let us re-cap: to the best of the US IC’s knowledge the Iranian government has NOT decided to make nuclear weapons.

OT: Censorship in the lovely APartheid "Democracy":

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/israeli-stores-stop-selling-book-that-denounces-settlers/

An Israeli bookstore chain announced on Sunday that it would stop selling “The National Left,” a political manifesto by two Israeli authors who compare settlers living on occupied Palestinian land to “brainwashing, hypnotized zombies” transforming Israel into “an apartheid state.”

The Israeli Web site Ynet News reported that the chain, Tzomet Sfarim, had said in a statement: “Because we received many complaints that the book hurts the feelings of some of our customers, we decided to stop selling it.” Ynet added that “right-wing elements have been pressuring the chain’s management in recent days to stop distributing the book.”

I've never thought of realism as a doctrine requiring one to ascribe one's own views to other country's governments, something Walt does quite often, for example in this post.

Does China's government wish to safeguard its access to Iranian oil and gas, or does it know that its access will not be in jeopardy no matter what it does with respect to UN sanctions against Iran -- because Iran is heavily dependent on oil and gas revenue and has little choice but to sell what it can? Do China's leaders know their country gained little geopolitically when China went nuclear in the 1960s, or do they know that nuclear weapons then were seen (probably correctly) as an essential component of Chinese security against the Soviet threat? Does China take for granted that nuclear weapons developed by Iran couldn't possibly be used because China didn't use them, or does it entertain the possibility that it might be best not to be complacent about nuclear proliferation?

In each case, the former proposition is a dubious one to ascribe to the Chinese, but Walt does so anyway because it represents his own view. I suppose it's only coincidence that realism means whatever he wants it to mean, too.

Casting aside China's deep economic and commercial involvement with Iran for a moment, there could one more reason why China is not necessarily worried about a nuclear-armed Iran; one that carries enormous geopolitical weight. China considers Iran as an ally that can put a dent on American influence in the Middle East. This is right in line with China's general foreign-policy priority as of late: capitalize on America's mistakes in order to push its own weight.

It's doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that China is already expanding its power throughout the developing world. We see Chinese companies opening firms in Africa, pouring millions of dollars into reconstruction and development projects around the continent. The United States, on the other hand, is standing on the sidelines, confused about what do with Africa. Washington continues to look at African Policy through the context of national-security, whereas China is cutting deals (worth billions of dollars) and gaining the trust of ordinary Africans.

We see Chinese President Hu Jintao traveling in America's former backyard, meeting with Brazilian President Lula da Silva and getting directly involved politically and economically where the United States can't (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and the like).

The Chinese are retaining their traditional sphere of influence in Southeast Asia. And of course, China doesn't mind reaching out to countries that the U.s either cannot or will not go, like Iran and Syria.

So perhaps dragging its feet in the UNSC has more latent dimensions. Sure, they don't want another country with a nuclear weapons stockpile, but in the long-run, who cares? As long as the country gaining nuclear weapons is an American adversary and a Chinese ally (which Iran is), then it's just one step closer to Beijing's overall goal: a larger sphere of influence.

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

Haven't agreed with or been at all impressed with Walt's arguments in his last 10 or so postings; however, (despite this one not being a very difficult one to call) he's spot on with this one. China will not be a very helpful hand...sorry optimists. It's good to see Walt finally steer clear of his typical BS analysis and finally give a straight shooter realist approach.

ahem, a nuclear armed Iran could be contained, were they making nuclear bombs, which they are not.

So says the National Defense University:
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/mcnairpdf.pdf

Iran is not making nukes:

Annual Threat Assessment:

http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20100202_testimony.pdf

“We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

And the “721” report:

http://www.dni.gov/reports/2009_721_Report.pdf

“…we do not know whether Iran will eventually decide to produce nuclear weapons.”

Pure Zionist fear-mongering to get US to do its dirty work.

Maybe China has moral

Realists like Walt and Mearsheimer always thinks that everyone is acting selffishly. But maybe China is acting morally consistent. It is hugely popular in all countries - from Latin America to the Near East - which have painful experiences of US interference. China is a trading partner that these countries can rely on - a country that doesn't interfere and doesn't mess up in their interna l affairs. This is the reason that China is so popular in these lands.

Look what the U.S has done (selcted samples):

1. Korea. - U.S. with allies started a war from the 38 parallel, and the war ended at the 38 parallel after more than one million - mostly Korean civilians - had been killed.

-----------------

2.. Vietnam4. Iran & Iraq - U.S initiated UN sanctions following the war in 1991, "Dual containment" 1993-1997 , embargo on Iran 1995 and Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996( Libya included to conceal the real target), 400,000 Iraqie children dead as a result of these sanctions - how many Iranian? We don't know.

The invasion of Iraq 2003 without UN approval and on false pretences about non-existing WMD's and links to AQ. 100,000 to 1 million (estimates vary) Iraqie civilians dead, 4 million refugees of which 2 million external. Terror spread to Iran's Khuzestan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey Spain United Kingdom.

Boycot of Iranian banks initiated by the under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the Treasury Department, Stuart Levey 2006-

Maybe China has moral

Realists like Walt and Mearsheimer always thinks that everybody are acting selffishly. But maybe China is acting morally consistent. It is hugely popular in all countries - from Latin America to the Near East - which have painful experiences of US interference. China is a trading partner that these countries can rely on - a country that doesn't interfere and doesn't mess up in their interna l affairs. This is the reason that China is so popular in these lands.

Look what the U.S has done (selcted samples):

1. Korea. - U.S. with allies started a war from the 38th parallel, and the war ended at the 38th parallel after more than one million - mostly Korean civilians - had been killed.

-----------------

2.. Vietnam.- A mistake from the outset, because as Defense Minister and the former rationalisation expert at Ford Motor Compamy, Robert McNamara later admitted, the U.S was fighting the people, not International Communism.

-----------------

4. Iran & Iraq - U.S initiated UN sanctions following the war in 1991, "Dual containment" 1993-1997 , embargo on Iran 1995 and Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996( Libya included to conceal the real target), 400,000 Iraqie children dead as a result of these sanctions - how many Iranian? We don't know.

The invasion of Iraq 2003 without UN approval and on false pretences about non-existing WMD's and links to AQ. 100,000 to 1 million (estimates vary) Iraqie civilians dead, 4 million refugees of which 2 million external. Terror spread to Iran's Khuzestan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey Spain United Kingdom.

Boycot of Iranian banks initiated by the under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the Treasury Department, Stuart Levey 2006-

Is that Beijing is not dependent on Iranian oil for its energy requirements, because it has managed over the years, to diversify its energy sources. Moreover, trade relations with Iran may well be lucrative, but like any other emerging market there is a ceiling to what Iran can import from China, therefore, in this context, business relations with the USA are probably a hundred times more important for China than relations with Iran. I would guess that, Beijing is trying to get more concessions from the USA in other domains. In any case, China's relations with the outside world are not based on ideological considerations.
khairi janbek.paris/paris

"...if Iran were to have nuclear weapons Israel would lose its role as the regional superpower...."

and that would be a good thing.

more at:

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/24/threats_to_israel_from_without_and_within

"...if Iran were to have nuclear weapons Israel would lose its role as the regional superpower...."

and that, IMHO, would be a good thing.

see more at:

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/24/threats_to_israel_from_without_and_within

In February 2005 I sat in an intelligence briefing for Israeli Middle East and diplomatic affairs correspondents at the headquarters of the Israel Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem. There were probably 15 of us around a long table. At the head, various researchers took turns speaking about the threat levels coming from different parts of the Muslim world.

When it came to Iran, the intelligence researcher told us in the most foreboding tone that Iran was very close to building a nuclear weapon. It was the same ‘and-that-will-be-the-end-of-us' tone that numerous Israeli politicians had been using in the media to warn Israelis following the Iranian announcement to develop nuclear energy.

At the time, I was serving as the Middle East correspondent for The Jerusalem Post and was a member of the Gulf/2000 Project, a group led by former National Security Council member and presidential advisor Gary Sick and made up mainly of academics, journalists, diplomats and intelligence people from East and West with a professional interest in the Persian Gulf. It exposed me to a wealth of information about Iran, including the problems it faces, its own security fears and the question of the nuclear threat. And it became clear to me that the Iranian regime was not crazy enough to push a would-be red button on Israel.

But I wanted to know how the Israeli intelligence people would answer the question:"So do you think that if the Iranian regime were to develop nuclear weapons some crazy mullah would press the red button?" So, I asked.

Before they could respond, Ayala Hasson, Israeli Channel One's diplomatic affairs correspondent, shouted across the table, "But of course they'll press the button!"

Harry Kney-Tal, director of the Foreign Ministry's Center for Diplomatic Research, paused before answering: "No, we don't think there is some crazy Iranian who is going to press the button." Nuclear weapons were a form of "insurance" against being attacked, he said.

For years now, official Israel has been scaring its people into believing Iran is near the ‘point of no return' and the day it reaches it will be doomsday for Israel (of course, Israel's estimated ‘point of no return' dates continuously pass, prompting it to make new ones). But the Israeli establishment knows that there is no existential threat, that the Iranian regime is radical, but not suicidal; that if it is building weapons of mass destruction (WMD), it is in self-defense.

So why all the hype? Why the deception? The reasons are many, but they come down to money, politics, and security.

After the briefing Kney-Tal shared with me that if Iran were to have nuclear weapons Israel would lose its role as the regional superpower. "We are afraid that it will give Iran more leverage to empower its clients, "he said, referring to Hizbullah and Syria.

In other words, Iranian nukes would prevent Israel from acting as the neighborhood bully and Israel would have to think twice before it attacked its neighbors.

Yet it wasn't until last month that a senior Israeli official, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, acknowledged that Israel did not fear an Iranian attack. The Iranian regime was "radical", he said in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, but not meshugeneh (the Yiddish word for crazy).

As retired Brigadier General Uzi Eilam describes in his recently published book, "Eilam's Arc", money and politics--not security--are the key reasons for the scare. The "defense establishment is sending out false alarms in order to grab a bigger budget," said the former Director-General of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission.

Moreover, some Israeli politicians are using Iran to divert attention away from problems at home. Not only does it make them more popular among the population--Israelis understandably feel more at home in the role of victims--but it also focuses the attention away from the country's internal problems which are not being solved: poverty, racial strife, and lack of peace with its neighbors. Finally, the ‘Holocaust-is-around-the-corner' doomsday prophecy, putting Israel in the traditional Jewish role of the oppressed, gives Israeli leaders more clout when pushing for gestures from friendly countries abroad.

Interestingly, Netanyahu has tempered his own doomsday prophecies. At the recent AIPAC conference he said that Iran "might be tempted" to use nuclear weapons. It is possible that if the Israeli Foreign Ministry intelligence department is aware that Iran does not pose an existential threat, then the US and European countries have come to the same conclusion. That would take the punch out of Israel's prophecies.

Now Israel is warning that Iran could share WMD knowledge with non-state actors who will use it against Israel and other countries: "Our world would never be the same," said Netanyahu at AIPAC.

If Israel really does fear this prospect it needs the help of its allies, either to pressure or persuade Iran. So when Vice President Biden comes to town it is best not to embarrass him with the announcement of settlement expansions and then insist on making more announcements that deepen the rift; when Turkish television broadcasts a television series depicting Israel in anugly manner, best not to humiliate the Turkish ambassador on Israeli television; when the Secretary General of the UN visits, best to send someone to greet him at the airport, and not just the security guards; and when Israel wants to make a revenge assassination for the killing of Israeli soldiers, best to let it go, rather than use fake passports of your allies (or don't get caught).

Israel's recent behavior is not conducive to achieving its stated goals. It must reassess its priorities and decide whether a settlement in the West Bank, the humiliation of diplomats, and the killing of an arms smuggler are more important than its security.

At the end of the day, Israel needs help if it wants to remain the only kid on the block with a big stick.

Too bad we have forgotten both geopolitcs and China's desire to not play nice with us. At the end of the day China wants to be the big lender in the market that is global economics. It seems all of their policies revolve around sticking it to the dollar. At some point we need to make a stand and stop the friendly-enemy stuff.