Monday, May 24, 2010

 

Is Iran a Distraction From Arizona?

All month, this Administration has been all “wee-wee’d up” over an Arizona law they had no hand in drafting and for the most part have not even bothered to read. But I guess since they’re all Ivy Leaguers, they nevertheless have had no problem identifying multiple ways that that law could be misused.

Meanwhile, on a matter that they were directly involved in drafting and that clearly involves the most important job of any federal Administration:

“U.S. officials also acknowledged that a loophole slipped into the language of the draft Security Council resolution on Iran would exempt a Russian-Iranian missile deal from a proposed ban of major arms sales to the Islamic republic.” Moscow makes gains in Iran deal as U.S. lifts sanctions against Russia

We’re supposed to be trying to negate Iran’s nuclear ambitions and our wunderkinds at the UN sign off on a Russian-Iranian missile deal? Here’s what they’re calling a “loophole”:

Yet it also emerged Friday that the draft includes a loophole that would exempt a 2005 Russian deal, valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, to sell Tehran five S-300 surface-to-air missile systems capable of intercepting ballistic missiles and aircraft, making them particularly valuable in the event of an Israeli air attack.”

(Sigh) Had I dropped out of ROTC after my first Monday drill, I would still have more experience in the military than the President, Vice President, Secretary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice collectively. If nobody was familiar with the purpose of a “surface-to-air” missile system then perhaps someone should have asked…or at least googled it.

It gets better:

“Although the resolution does not formally outlaw the sale of such missiles to Iran, it does call upon states to "exercise vigilance and restraint" with regard to them, according to a U.S. official. "It's worth mentioning that Russia has not transferred the S-300s," the official said. "That's not to say they couldn't do it tomorrow. But they haven't done it."

Why is that worth mentioning? If they had already transferred the S-300s, what would be the purpose of putting in a prohibition on the transaction?

Further, the NY Times reports:

“Another senior official, who is involved in the discussions but not authorized to be identified, said the administration would have liked to have banned the S-300 sale but believed it had an understanding with Russia not to proceed with it.”

We’re going on an “understanding” with the Russians? So…just to put things in perspective then, this Administration is apparently more trusting of the Russians than of Arizona to do the right thing. But, as Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff (CA) observed:

On the S-300s, he said, “It’s hard to understand why they would insist on that if they weren’t intending to deliver.”

But proving again that there is no issue or problem that can’t be reduced to mere platitudes by this President:

"The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times. Countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials…" At West Point, Obama offers new security strategy

Viewing the recent actions of China with North Korea as well as Russia, Brazil & Turkey with Iran, do you think he was going for irony? Perhaps the Obama Administration would have better luck – and display more passion – if they worked instead on a UN sanction's resolution against Arizona.

Comments:
Nice post. I really like your blog. I would to chat with you about a paid per post blogging opportunity.

Best,

-
James
202-459-4973
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Preview on Feedage: maryland-conservatarian
Add to Windows Live iPing-it