The UN Security Council mildly suggested that not all of the international community's questions about Iran's nuclear programs have been adequately answered. Perhaps:
The 15-member Security Council to ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium.
But we wouldn't want to be hasty:
Wednesday's statement from the Security Council took into account the Russian and Chinese reservations about too much toughness, while meeting U.S., French and British calls for keeping the pressure on Tehran.
The modest statement did not go as far as the United States had wanted. It is not legally binding and carries no explicit penalties for Iran if it does not comply, but Rice said it is an important first step. The Security Council could eventually impose economic sanctions, though Russia and China say they oppose such tough measures.
One wonders what the madmen of Tehran must think of all this. They deal with their enemies ruthlessly and pursue their perceived national interest of gaining nukes to slaughter infidels. And we in the West strive for years to cobble together a virtual plea for Iran's mullahs to please stop trying to get nuclear weapons to slaughter us. As if Tehran would even care about a "legally binding" statement! Some Westerner diplomats would seriously be rattled by such a mild rebuke, so think that this step would be important in stopping Iran! We're holding that in reserve to really "pressure" the mullahs if politeness doesn't work.
I don't know about you, but the suspense about whether Iran will comply with the demands of the vaunted international community will consume me for the rest of the month.
Thirty days to comply here and thirty days there. Pretty soon we're talking about real time. Time enough for nukes, the mullahs are assuming. I see no reason to judge their optimism wrong if we really are counting on the Iranians to surrender their nuke ambitions.
Lovely decade we're having, eh?
