From Agence France-Presse:
The top Iranian nuclear negotiator praised Russia and China on Tuesday as taking a "realistic" approach after talks among major powers failed to resolve differences over the Tehran nuclear program. "We feel that certain countries have been acting in a more realistic manner" over the nuclear issue, the negotiator, Ali Larijani, said, referring to the two UN powers. He was in Athens for talks with the Greek foreign minister, Dora Bakoyannis. "Other countries are trying to create headaches," he said. "I come from a region where a lot of problems have been created by the United States. "Our advice to the European Union is not to follow the policy of a country which creates problems for this region. The EU can play a constructive role."
I'm sure government officials in Khartoum, speaking of another vile regime coddled by Russia and China, wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Larijani. Leave us alone so we can pillage Darfur and our friends in Tehran can build their nuclear weapons without getting hassled by the Americans. On another note, Gerard Baker of The Times (London) gives his take on Ahmadinejad's letter (via the Swiss Embassy) to President Bush calling for direct talks with the U.S. He writes:
There seems to be nothing of real substance in the letter (unless you count the Iranian president's seeking common religious ground with George Bush) and the US has dismissed it. But there's method, I suspect, in Ahmadinejad's missive. It comes at a moment when the west appears to be at a loss as to how to proceed in the face of Iran's nuclear defiance. UN sanctions won't get past the Russians and the Chinese; operating outside the UN might get support but can hardly be effective without the involvement of those two crucial partners of Iran, and military options remain distinctly unpalatable. Into this vacuum has come the call for the US to treat directly with Teheran. In the US this is rapidly becoming the Democrats' agreed position. Having tried for a while to out-hawk the administration with Hillary Clinton's condemnation of the "outsourcing of US policy" to the Europeans, Democrats now say the US should speak directly to the Iranians and see what gives. Why not at least try? they say. The alternative is not getting us very far. At best talks might produce some Iranian movement or reveal the true scale of Iran's ambitions. At worst they will fail because of Iranian intransigence and we will have demonstrated even to the Chinese and the Russians the utter futility of trying to deal with these people diplomatically. So why not? The answer is that before embarking on any diplomatic (or for that matter military) initiative, you should be assured of a reasonable chance of success, otherwise, the process itself becomes larger than the objective you are trying to achieve and can bog you down in a futile exercise. In the meantime the other side gains simply from the passage of time. If the Iranians seriously demonstrate a willingness to abandon their military ambitions, then by all means talk to them. If all they want to is exchange views about the iniquities of the war in Iraq, the historical unreality of the Holocaust and the merits of the continued existence of Israel, the US would be well advised to politely decline.