Roger L. Simon

It's about 'earl'

CNN reports some differences between the US and UK approaches to the Iranian nuclear crisis. Although both favor bringing it before the Security Council, Britain says “go slow” on economic sanctions for their own obvious reasons. From CNN:

“I don’t think we should rush our fences here. There are plenty of examples where a matter is referred to the Security Council and the Security Council takes action and that action is followed without sanction,” PA quoted [British Foreign Secretary] Straw as saying.

“The fact that Iran is so concerned not to see it referred to the Security Council underlines the strength of that body.”Tehran has threatened to force world oil prices higher if the Security Council imposes sanctions against it.

“Any possible sanctions on Iran from the West could possibly, by disturbing Iran’s political and economic situation, raise oil prices beyond levels the West expects,” local news reports and wire services quoted Economy Minister Davoud Danesh-Jafari as telling state-run radio.

Iran is the second-largest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Our other important ally, the more economically-powerful Japan, is hugely dependent on Iranian oil. Catch 22? How about a US-Japanese crash program to develop alternative energy sources?