The New Republic

I thought Nicolas Sarkozy made a good, if not particularly diplomatic point when he said, "...President Obama dreams of a world without weapons ... but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite. "Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993. "I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map," he continued, referring to Israel. The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama's resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy. "If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons," he said. Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president's disarmament crusade "naïve"." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6228477/UN-leaders-back-nuclear-resolution-but-grow-impatient-with-Iran.html

- malahat

September 25, 2009 at 1:54pm

America's not so secret nuke facilities explained: We have so many nukes and so many means to deliver them it's a good thing our intentions around the globe are pure as the driven snow. Simple and sweet. Come on, the above "analysis" sounds rather familiar to another....the Bush, Cheney, Rice indictment of Iraq. Remember those ominous "tubes", the yellowcake and the mushroom cloud over Washington? Sure, the indictment above may well be right on the mark. But only a fool would assume this to be so given the source. You're not a fool, are you? george

- iambiguous

September 25, 2009 at 2:18pm

Besides talk, what does Sarkozy bring to the table? Would he support a military option? If not, how much lobbying and arm twisting has he done to facilitate a very tough sanction? Dreaming of a world without weapons is a good starting point, and Obama has moved way past dreaming. So, Sarkozy who, apparently loves action and not just dreams, has done what, exactly? Armchair quarterbacking is the easiest job in the world. Sarkozy should shut up and start working the Russians and Chinese. Then, perhaps, we might get somewhere with sanctions, and if not, a good groundwork would have been laid for the last resort, a military option.

- scrubby

September 25, 2009 at 3:07pm

Scrubby said, "...Besides talk, what does Sarkozy bring to the table? Would he support a military option? If not, how much lobbying and arm twisting has he done to facilitate a very tough sanction" Besides talk, what has Obama brought to the table? Would he support a military option? If not, how much lobbying and arm twisting has he done to facilitate a very tough sanction? Apparently, Sarkozy is more gung-ho in suggesting a military option against Iran than is the chief of staff of France's military, Gen. Jean-Louis Georgelin http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32781424/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

- malahat

September 25, 2009 at 3:21pm

I think that opening a debate at the highest level of international dialogue is also "doing." I get a bit frustrated by comments that imply that the only thing that counts as action is some sort of aggressive measure. Talking is doing in politics -- you need other things too, but a conversation has to start somewhere. Regarding Sarkozy, it seems to me that, with the French, one has always to remember how much they are invested in the "force du frappe" and how they'll fight to the death to make sure France never has to give up a single item in its (small) nuclear arsenal. France is committed to the system that allows it to pretend it's a world power. It wouldn't suprise me if Sarkozy wanted to provoke more resistance to Obama in parts of the world and thus make the U.S. idea more difficult to implement while pretending he's gung-ho for the president. I'm not saying he'd do that out of malice, but he'd do it if he thought Obama's ideas were ultimately a threat to the French nuclear status.

- ironyroad

September 25, 2009 at 3:36pm

Irony, I agree with your point. I think tacitly, or not-so-tacitly, nothwithstanding all the breast-beating and saber rattleing, the messages from various quarters that there is really no military option, the lack of sanctions to date and the continued temporizing about if, when and what kind of sanctions would be implemented suggest to me that, cutting through the crap, there has been an acceptance of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and that in the context there is an irony (no pun intended) or, as Sarkozy suggests, a certain naivite of Obama's dream of disarmament .

- malahat

September 25, 2009 at 3:44pm

Irony, I think that the French, like the other nuclear powers have a vested interest in keeping a nuclear capability. But that's a rational policy if you believe that the crazies are getting or trying to get nuclear weapons and you believe that the only credible strategic deterrent is to keep your nukes.

- malahat

September 25, 2009 at 4:05pm

bI462, Did you witness the statement from the Russian president, which, no matter how it's parsed, signaled an important shift in Russian attitude toward sanctions? Well, that was a direct result of Obama's moves, not Sarkozy's. You write: "Apparently, Sarkozy is more gung-ho in suggesting a military option against Iran than is the chief of staff of France's military, Gen. Jean-Louis Georgelin." Really? So, he mentioned "the possibility of a military intervention", and that makes him more gung-ho than his military chief or Obama? See irony above. It's important to remember that not even the tough and very gung-ho Dick Cheney could pull off the military option. Why? Our military brass are set against it, and for good reasons, too. But while the faux tough guys were content to just talk and posture, the president has managed to move the ball farther in nine months than all of them achieved in years. Moreover, he's done this without taking military intervention off the table. No American president has a magic wand for controlling the behavior of other nations, but so far, Obama has done much effective lobbying and diplomacy. If only his critics, who seem unable to detach their personal dislike of him from their critique of his policy, could see and acknowledge the obvious. Bluster does not equal effectiveness. (Read Dick Cheney)

- scrubby

September 25, 2009 at 4:54pm

Scrubby, A shift in Russian attitude plus $4 or $5 bucks will get you a good cup of coffee. You also need the Chinese on board. Re: the article I linked to does indicate that Sarkozy is more gung-ho than his military chief. As for statements by Obama and the other world leaders, it all seems to me to sound and fury, signifying nothing but a nuclear Iran. I'd love to be wrong.

- malahat

September 25, 2009 at 5:15pm

It's true that the leverage is not so great, on our side. However, the problem is a deeper one than just Bush-bluster vs. Obama-charm. After 1945 both we and the Soviets were able to keep a hand on each other's side, and could force elements of control into our allies' nuclear capability, e.g. the British Poseidon submarine-based ICBMs. After the Cuba crisis and other close calls, both superpowers were rattled enough to support a non-proliferation treaty that would provide a structure for keeping countries from starting off down that road. The assumption behind the NPT was that each side in the Cold War would police its own. Nobody really challenged the 1945 set up on the Security Council. Broadly, China was the big one that left the Russian house to do their own thing. And a smaller version of that on our side was Israel. But then Pakistan, India, and North Korea started to develop the technology. And then the Cold War ended. Suddenly it wasn't so clear that there were still two "sides" that could keep an eye on what went on and squelch any smaller power that wanted to get in the game. Now, any country could, in theory, become a wannabe nuclear-armed nation. They could start off down the road and with only the IAEA to cast a glance their way. And the old superpower attitude of "what we say, goes" began to be less and less convincing. John Bolton was perhaps the last practitioner of the "don't do as we do, do as we say!" school of American nuclear diplomacy. This is the knottier problem -- how do we handle the nuclear issue where we don't have an international structure (no matter how fragile itself) that can enforce some rules? We just don't get to lay down the law on this ourselves any more, and nobody has come up with a real solution. Obama at least is trying to shift policy in a more intelligent direciton. In a way, we're back to where the JFK administration was in the early 60s, except there's a lot more nuclear hardware out in the world

- ironyroad

September 25, 2009 at 6:01pm

bI462: "A shift in Russian attitude plus $4 or $5 bucks will get you a good cup of coffee." Touche. "As for statements by Obama and the other world leaders, it all seems to me to sound and fury, signifying nothing but a nuclear Iran." It may seem so. The two different revelations of Iran's duplicity in the last 24 hours - Qum and Venezuela - could change things, though. I hope.

- scrubby

September 25, 2009 at 6:03pm

Irony, Great post.

- malahat

September 25, 2009 at 6:05pm

Scrubby: "...The two different revelations of Iran's duplicity in the last 24 hours - Qum and Venezuela - could change things, though. I hope." Me too. But I ain't holding my breath.

- malahat

September 25, 2009 at 6:49pm

Thanks, b1462. I'll take a cappucino, if you're buying!

- ironyroad

September 25, 2009 at 7:21pm

Irony, Any time!

- malahat

September 25, 2009 at 7:51pm