The IAEA is planning to visit two—count them—Iranian nuclear…sites. Naturally, IRNA, the government-run Islamic Republic News Agency is touting this as fulfilling “a series of demands made by the United Nations nuclear watchdog.”

But of course. We won’t mention all the other sites that Iran won’t let the IAEA visit, much less inspect thoroughly, on this trip. It’s a toothless watchdog, anyway.

Aspects of the visits include

[a] visit [to] a uranium mine and a uranium-thickening facility in central Iranian towns of Ardakan and Yazd on Monday and Tuesday.

And

“Following the visit, Iran will be able to say that the seven agreed measures between Iran and the agency have fulfilled,” [Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Spokesman Behrouz] Kamalvandi said. “Already six steps have been taken.”

Never mind the advanced notice of such “inspections,” during which Iran can manipulate what will be allowed to be seen.

Never mind, either, that even after the “seven agreed measures” there continues to be no discernible effect on Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons.

The visits, and their predecessors, all take place in a carefully choreographed sequence, with equally set timing, all under Iran’s control. Of course the goodies are being equally carefully choreographed so as to remain hidden from fundamentally incurious UN eyes.

Is there one? It would seem not. Everywhere President Barack Obama went on his recently concluded Reset trip through Asia, his lack of any sort of policy vis-à-vis Asia was made plain by concerns expressed about his failure to perform regarding Ukraine.

On each stop in Asia, including South Korea and Malaysia, Mr Obama’s trip was accompanied by concerns over aggression by Moscow and its militant allies in defiance of warnings by the US and other Western powers.

Because yes, Virginia, there really are linkages.

Under threat from Russia, Kiev earlier this year appealed to Washington for small arms and ammunition, as well as for nonlethal items like flak jackets and night-vision goggles. Wary of antagonizing Moscow, the White House dragged out internal deliberations for weeks before deciding earlier this month to send helmets, sleeping mats and other nonlethal gear deemed by US officials to be less provocative—but no arms.

The PRC isn’t oblivious to this, as any thinking adult knows. Nor is it lost on them that this administration is more at pains to avoid angrifying the perpetrator than it is in defending or otherwise meaningfully supporting the perp’s victim.

US officials say Asian allies who want to know how Washington would respond to future acts of Chinese aggression shouldn’t look at what the US is doing to aid Ukraine but instead at Pentagon moves to reassure Eastern European allies and Baltic states since the US is bound by treaty agreements to help defend them.

Yet what our Asian allies, as well as potential allies, see is the US reneging on exactly those treaty agreements—see the Belgrade Memorandum, for instance, coupled with the continued occupation of a Ukrainian oblast by the Russians. See, also, the earlier withdrawal from a missile defense shield agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic—on Russia’s demand.

The steps can be taken without risking a shooting war, officials say, citing intelligence that suggests there are divisions within the Chinese military establishment about how to respond. … “Never push your enemy into a corner because you might get a reaction you don’t want.”

But sometimes the risk of “a shooting war” needs to be imposed on the other side—no situation is only about us. This also is a misreading of Sun-Tzu, who didn’t say never. After all, it’s the threat of shooting him that’s necessary to encourage him to take the way off the field, especially if his preference is to come through you. And sometimes, after all is said and done, you do have to fight.

The incoherence, as well as the timidity, of Obama’s moves regarding Asia (and Europe) would be palpable were there enough of a policy to be timid or incoherent.