Guess Who's Not Coming To Dinner?
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared last week that he would fly to New York to personally address the UN Security Council before a vote to impose tougher sanctions on Iran for their uranium enrichment. Those travel plans have apparently been cancelled, with the Iranians complaining that the US did not issue visas in time for their trip:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad canceled a trip to New York to address the U.N. Security Council before it votes on whether to impose further sanctions against his country for refusing to stop enriching uranium, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Friday.The decision came as diplomats from the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council — the U.S., Britain, France, China and Russia — and Germany held a flurry of last-minute negotiations in New York on a draft resolution seeking to pressure Iran to comply. ...
Ahmadinejad said earlier this month that he wanted to take his case for pursuing nuclear power to the Security Council himself. Earlier Friday, a council diplomat said the Iranian president would arrive in New York at 1 a.m. Saturday, just hours before the council is expected to meet.
But Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini told Iranian state television later in the day that the trip had been scrapped because of "America's obstruction in issuing visas" to the Iranian delegation that was to travel to New York.
I guess that Ahmadinejad wasn't terribly serious about his trip to the Big Apple after all. The US delivered 39 visas, including Ahmadinejad's, to the Iranian mission in Benn, Switzerland, where what little contact between the two nations takes place. We also promised to have 36 more visas ready later today.
Ahmadinejad wanted a chance to play the victim once again for domestic consumption. The television appearance paints the US as unwilling to hear Iran's side of the issue, being the Zionist puppets that we are, I'm sure. That may not work out too well, though, because the vote may get postponed -- which means Ahmadinejad will have ample time to collect those visas after all.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on March 23, 2007 6:12 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (2)
Comments (9)
Posted by Only_One_Cannoli![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 7:11 PM
Trivial me - the thing that I found most disgusting about his potential visit was the idea that he would have used basic American services while he was here. He would have been escorted around on our roads, eaten American-grown food at his embassy, soiled our sewage system with his excrement. Here's hoping he stays away.
Posted by CJ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 7:55 PM
It's too bad. He would have made a great hostage to exchange for the fifteen Brits his minions are holding right now.
Posted by scott![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 8:14 PM
If he wants to come to the UN, fine, them give HIM a visa. We have an obligation under the UN founding treaty to allow types such as him to come to New York.
BUT: a visa for HIM, and perhaps ONE aid. No entourage. No "body guards". None.
When his plane lands at JFK, it should be met by US Marshalls, who will occompany Dinnerjacket to the UN. They should also stand next to the podium as he speaks.
There should be no doubt as to where we stand on this. He can address to UN; but under OUR terms. He has no more right than that.
The man is a thug. He heads a theocratic, barbaric regime that openly threatens us and other nations. He is, essentially, an international criminal for calling for the destruction of at least TWO UN member states; US and Israel.
If he doesn't like the terms, he can stay home and videoconference.
Posted by Karen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 9:06 PM
I think he backed out because he was afraid of becoming a hostage here in exchange for the Brits. Sounds like a good plan to me!!!
Posted by Dan![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 9:39 PM
Ed I think your analysis is wrong. I think the British hostage situation demanded his attention, hence the cancelled trip. The visa issue is just a lame excuse. This could be an indicator that this hostage situation will not end well after a few days like the last one did a few years back. This one will probably last much longer.
Think of the first British hostage taking incident as a sort of test on what the Brist would do. I wonder if they ransomed for them then...
I wonder if they'll ransom for them now... it is after all the European way. 15 soldiers would certainly demand top dollar.
The trip was cancelled most certainly by the event of the taking of the Brits. What that all means is anyone's guess. But it doesn't look good.
Posted by Daryl Herbert![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 9:40 PM
This is good news. It means the kidnapping wasn't planned so he could triumphantly address the U.N. while the whole world knows he's holding hostages. Which means the English will most likely get their people back soon, and quietly, and unharmed.
Posted by Anthony (Los Angeles)![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 24, 2007 1:43 AM
The US delivered 39 visas, including Ahmadinejad's, to the Iranian mission in Benn, Switzerland, where what little contact between the two nations takes place. We also promised to have 36 more visas ready later today.
Even that's bunk from the Iranians. All they needed was for those visas to be waiting when they arrived at their first US destination. My guess is that the Iranians are trying to play head-games with the Security Council.
Posted by hunter![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 24, 2007 6:31 AM
There are likely multiple layers of reasoning at work here. I think the deepest reason is that things in Iran are spinning out of countrol faster than the little dictator is comfortable with. The Brits are not going to tolerate his actions here at all. Iraq is not turning into the puppet state they want, despite all the efforts of the democrat party to help see Iraq fall. The few stories we get out of Iran show a population not quietly accepting islamofascism. I think the little dictator was only after some theater and shopping in NYNY, but the domestic risk of not having a job, either by mullahs firing him or the people revolting, made the diversion too risky.
Posted by patrick neid![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 24, 2007 6:53 AM
unless we all have found some backbone recently the brits and the US will do nothing. there are no threats we can make that anyone, especially the iranians, will be worried about.
after 30 years of intermittently killing us at their leisure, being feted at the UN and basically sipping their lattes with politicians looking for photo ops, what exactly are we going to threaten them with? the bomb? an invasion? b-52's? if we are not willing to do anything about them getting the a-bomb we are certainly not going to do anything about 15 sailors except jump up and down in our playpens and threaten them with "nasty letters" to follow.
the sailors will be released when the mullahs feel like it--and not a second sooner.