Liveline?

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

Somebody ought to invent a word for a deadline that isn’t really a deadline. A liveline? The thought came to mind following the passing of this weekend’s “deadline” for Iran to halt enriching nuclear fuel for use in an atom bomb. As a dispatch of the Associated Press reported it from Tehran, “Iran will not give up ‘a single iota of its nuclear rights,’ the country’s president said Saturday, rebuffing an informal deadline to stop expanding uranium enrichment or face more sanctions.”

If this sounds familiar, it should. The Associated Press and the rest of the press have been reporting on disarmament “deadlines” for Iran now for five years, and Iran has been ignoring the deadlines for just as long, with no appreciable consequences. If a line is reached and crossed and no death results, is it really a deadline?

The first deadline was back in 2003. The deadline was so significant that France and America even agreed on it. “Mr. Villepin said Iran must meet the October 31st deadline that the IAEA imposed or face possible sanctions,” Voice of America reported on September 30, 2003.

“Iran Given New Nuclear ‘Deadline'” was the headline of an article published on the BBC Web site in September of 2004. It reported on an International Atomic Energy Agency resolution that “imposes an indirect deadline of 25 November.” The BBC article quoted an American diplomat as saying “The time for decisive action is approaching.” That was four years ago.

The year 2005 brought another so-called deadline — September 3. “In Vienna, Austria, where the IAEA is based, diplomats said Iran faced a Sept. 3 deadline to stop uranium conversion,” the Associated Press reported in August of 2005.

There were deadlines in 2006, too. “U.N. Gives Iran Nuclear Deadline,” was the headline over an article in the Daily Telegraph on August 1, 2006, reporting, “The United Nations Security Council has given Iran until the end of August to suspend uranium enrichment.”

The next year, 2007, brought more deadlines. “The UN has set today as a final deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment,” the Guardian reported on February 21, 2007. The final deadline? Right.

Now, over the weekend, another deadline came and went. On Saturday, Secretary of State Rice said the Iranian envoys failed to give a clear answer. “The Iranians did not give a clear answer. If they don’t give a clear answer, then I think we will have no choice but to begin again to prepare sanctions resolutions for the Security Council,” Ms. Rice said at the Aspen Institute in Aspen, Colo. But Ms. Rice added that she did not expect the U.N. Security Council would prepare sanctions until September, ruling out any action in the next few weeks.

Given the history of these diplomatic deadlines, it’s no wonder that they don’t exactly strike fear into the hearts of the Iranian government. Nor is it surprising that the Israelis are running training exercises for military missions to take out Iran’s nuclear sites. What is surprising is that Senator Obama, who appears to be an intelligent man, wants to negotiate with the Iranians. What is he going to do, give them a deadline?


The New York Sun

© 2024 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use