Sunday, January 17, 2010

Why Do Obama, et al Keep Talking Iran Sanctions?

When the two peoples who would most need to enforce any sanctions have said time and again they won't, it seems crazy to me to keep banging on the subject.

China balks at Iran sanctions
In an expected move, China resisted sanctions, highlighting the key role that the country, with its United Nations Security Council veto power, is able to play in the international relationship with Iran.
[snip]
To emphasize its point, China sent only sent a low-level representative to the meeting, while the other nations sent senior diplomats.


Russia says further anti-Iran sanctions futile
Moscow said on Saturday that imposing additional sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear energy program will most likely prove to be of no avail.

"I believe that in this particular situation, the effectiveness of [additional] sanctions is highly doubtful," said Russian Foreign Ministry Deputy Sergei Ryabkov, who represented Moscow at the meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1).
So why is Obama and company still beating a dead horse? Is it some arcane maneuver to put the Iranians off guard, or a complete lack of another option.

If you take a course in negotiation, one of the things they should teach you is that you should formulate your "best alternative to a negotiated solution." People can't always agree. Sometimes I think Washington bureaucrats and diplomats think that if they talk long enough you will agree to something. Maybe that is because they don't really believe in anything themselves.

No comments: