On credibility

The U.S., having figured out that two permanent members aren't interested in buying its claims, seems to have given up on attacking Iran's nuclear program through the U.N. Security Council:

Apparently lacking the votes to win, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice indicated Wednesday President George W. Bush's administration is prepared to delay again a showdown with Iran over its nuclear weapons program...

Rice last week appealed openly to China, Russia, India and other countries to support threatening Iran with sanctions for refusing to halt its nuclear program...

But Russia quickly registered its opposition to trying to impose sanctions now on Iran in the UN Security Council and the White House acknowledged Wednesday that Bush was unable to obtain a commitment from Chinese President Hu Jintao.

As far as I can tell, the stand by Russia and China should close the door on any military diversion in Iran. The tactic of crippling a state with sanctions made the Iraq invasion a lot easier, but without that weapon in its arsenal the U.S. can't expect to easily take out the Iranian regime without bringing out the nukes, and that's simply not feasible in an administration already trusted as little as this one is.

Rice spoke of trying to send a "political message" to Iran instead, but the true message here was sent by Putin and Hu: the U.S. has lost the benefit of any doubt on the Security Council, at least as long as Bushco remains in charge. And that'll remain true no matter how determined the U.S. is to ignore any exculpatory evidence or lack of immediate risk.

To the neocons, the position of China and Russia will be taken as evidence of the U.N.'s stubbornness and irrelevance. But to most of the rest of the world, it's evidence that the veto is doing its job, ensuring that speculation and posturing can't be equated with a guilty verdict from the world. It's only a shame that the same factors were able to win some measure of Security Council approval one time too many.