The big time “nuclear summit” in D.C. is ongoing, and nothing has really happened, so I have no news to discuss. However, just like the media, I’ll say something anyway. In fact, because there is so much press coverage over so little substance, that’s a good topic right there.

Let’s back up a moment. The “Nuclear Security Summit,” which began in D.C. yesterday, was ostensibly set up to address general nuclear proliferation and related terrorism issues. Representatives of 47 countries are attending the conference. What’s really going on, though, is a push by Washington to garner sufficient support in the United Nations to push through economic sanctions against Iran.

Back to the China angle. I’ve written about this topic a few times, setting out why I would be surprised if China ultimately cooperates with the U.S. on sanctions. I said this on April 5:

I will be surprised if China ultimately goes along with tough sanctions against one of its principal commodities suppliers.

Blunt, but yeah, that’s the number one issue: petroleum. A secondary issue (distant second) is China’s traditional stance against “non-interference” in a country’s domestic system and how it is perceived by its trading partners if it makes an exception in this case. I addressed this back in February:

Iran is a very important China partner, a nation working with Beijing on energy as well as a number of other commercial issues. To agree to sanctions, China would take a big, direct hit even if the U.S. was successful in guaranteeing China’s oil needs.

Moreover, what kind of signal would China be sending to its other allies across the globe? Many energy suppliers and other friendlies are frowned upon by the West for a variety of reasons related to governmental structure, domestic politics, support of terrorism, etc. If China is willing to throw Iran under the bus in the face of pressure from the U.S. and EU, which other trading partner might be next?

This is not an easy decision for China.

Which brings us back to the big summit in D.C. and all the press excitement. All eyes are on China and its reaction to the U.S. position. Will they cross Iran and support sanctions or not?

• The LA Times calls game over with this headline: “China Agrees to Pursue New Sanctions Against Iran.” A forceful and definitive statement. The U.S. won.
• Slightly less conclusory, yet still suggestive of a done deal is this from the Guardian: “China to Work With US on Iran Sanctions.”
• Last, but not least, the New York Times: “China Pledges to Work With US on Iran Sanctions.”

If I’m Obama, I like those headlines. Obama emerges victorious after some US-China missteps earlier in the year. Just how did he do it?

Well, see, that’s the thing. He didn’t, or at least not yet. Remember how I opened this post, that nothing had really happened yesterday? Yeah.

So what are all those headlines based on? Some of the positive spin reflects statements by top level sources, whose job it is to get that positive spin out to the press. Let’s take a look at some of the sourcing. The Times leads off with “administration officials” saying that Hu Jintao agreed to join negotiations. In the next phrase (in the same sentence!), they made the statement meaningless, noting that Hu made no specific commitment about tough sanctions. Therefore so what?

The Guardian has an “upbeat” (their word) statement from Obama’s top Asia guru, Jeff Bader, who said that China is “prepared to work with us.” OK, whatever that means. The body of the Guardian article included a hefty bit of skepticism regarding an eventual positive outcome.

What about the LA Times? Was that cheerleading headline a good call? Here is the first paragraph:

Chinese President Hu Jintao agreed in a face-to-face meeting with President Obama on Monday to pursue new economic sanctions against Iran, but stopped short of committing his government’s support for the additional strictures aimed at persuading Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions.

If you can figure out what that means after reading the article, you’re an interpretive genius and should pursue a career in modern dance or another of the creative arts.

I just went through that painful exercise to illustrate that these headlines were complete and utter nonsense. Even the articles, which by and large were fairly good, spell out quite clearly that China may be stalling for time here, and that it will either be successful in watering down sanction language or will abstain from a UN Security Council vote on tough sanctions. I agree.

The pessimists were also out there, although seemingly in smaller numbers. AFP had this blunt headline: “China: Sanctions Alone “Cannot Solve” Iran Nuclear Issue,” and the Associated Press ran with this: “Tehran Doesn’t See China’s Statement At Nuke Summit As Support For New Iran Sanctions.” Of course Tehran would say this, but they actually might be right.

This will be a long-term process. The U.S. might still pull out a victory, even though the odds are quite long against it. Until that happens, I will not only remain skeptical that Obama will chalk up a win, but also of breathless headlines touting breakthroughs that do not even agree with the contents of the articles they purport to describe.