I will pick up where I previously left off regarding the “wants” of the US government in the UN Security Council regarding Syria, and the increasing isolation of the US on the world stage:
There needs to be consequences for noncompliance,” [Ben Rhodes, White House deputy national security adviser] told reporters on a conference call. “We would want to see the strongest enforcement possible.”
Well, it looks like that didn’t go well:
According to a Western diplomat, the draft resolution imposes a set of binding legal obligations on Syria that includes, in the event of noncompliance, Security Council ability to seek sanctions under a separate Security Council resolution.
The language in the draft text authorizes the director general of the OPCW and the U.N. Secretary General to report noncompliance to the Security Council as it happens, after which the Security Council can decide to impose measures, the Western diplomat said.
The resolution would not authorize automatic use of force if Syria is said to be in violation, as was previously sought by the United States, said the source. (emphasis added)
Nothing automatic. No “bombs away” resolution.
So much for Syria. What about Iran?
"We hope to be able to make progress towards resolving this issue in a timely fashion based on respecting the rights of the Iranian people to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including enrichment. And, at the same time, making sure that there is no concern at the international level that Iran's nuclear program is anything but peaceful," Zarif told reporters after the meeting.
This is more or less what Iran has said every time the west has bullied them about the Iranian nuclear program.
"I think all of us were pleased that Foreign Minister Zarif came and made a presentation to us, which was very different in tone and very different in the vision that he held out with respect to the possibilities of the future," Kerry said.
Different in tone? How would Kerry know? The words certainly aren’t much different. Tone? You only know tone based on a voice. The US hasn’t sat down with an Iranian leader in over 30 years.
If there is any difference in tone, might it not be from the bully that recently received a punch in the nose? More than once?
Now for some words worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize:
[Rouhani] called on Thursday for an end to nuclear weapons, saying such disarmament "remains our highest priority."
"As long as nuclear weapons exist, the risk of their use, threat of use and proliferation persist," Rouhani told the U.N. General Assembly on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. "The only absolute guarantee is their total elimination."
This is a most moral sentiment, and the only ethical option. It is an ethic well-grounded in Judeo-Christian principles. Judeo-Christians in the west should perhaps take note.