home

U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran

Update: Newsweek has a new article on the proposed Russian compromise.

**********
Condoleeza Rice, on behalf of the U.S., saying "there's not much to talk about," and France have rejected Iran's request for talks over their nuclear program.

First Post (UK) says the neo-cons are behind the stand-off. Simon Jenkins in the Guardian writes the U.S. has picked a fight it cannot win.

Washington's kneejerk belligerence ignores Tehran's influence and the need for subtle engagement

At this very moment, US officials in Baghdad are on their knees begging Iran-backed Shia politicians and militias to help them get out of Iraq. From Basra to the suburbs of Baghdad, Iranian influence is dominant. Iranian posters adorned last month's elections. Whatever Bush and Blair thought they were doing by invading Iraq, they must have known the chief beneficiary from toppling the Sunni ascendancy would be Shia Iran. They cannot now deny the logic of their own policy. Democracy itself is putting half Iraq in thrall to its powerful neighbour.

Iran is the regional superstate. If ever there were a realpolitik demanding to be "hugged close" it is this one, however distasteful its leader and his centrifuges. If you cannot stop a man buying a gun, the next best bet is to make him your friend, not your enemy.

[Graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL.]

< High Court Sidesteps Abortion Issue | Sen. Durbin Introduces Cell Phone Privacy Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#1)
    by Punchy on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 11:15:14 AM EST
    You cannot negotiate with a country with whom you're about to attack. See, talking might actually bring about a solution, which would nullify the justification to attack. Remember, Saddam days before the invasion INSISTED we come in and look around to see there was nothing there. We declined so that we could still justify the invasion. And now Iran. No talks? God forbid talks end the stalemate. All those bombers we own and currently nowhere to use them....yet.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#2)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 11:16:54 AM EST
    McCain has it right... "The only thing worse then war with Iran is Iran having Nuclear Weapons" -parahprased The Iranians have been "talking" for two years and the Europeans have had the lead. Those talks have failed and while we were spinning our wheels hoping for a resolution Iran has been fortyfing their positions and moving closer to a bomb then when the talks started. Add that to Iran advocating the elimination of Isreal, their support of Hesbola and you get a recipe for disaster. Is it any coincidence that we have troops, aircraft and our Navy completely surrounding Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan). The Guardian can say what it wants but we can invade Iran if we NEED to. The real question should be - What's the best way to keep Iran from gaining Nukes now that talks have failed? Don't forget the Europeans took the lead on this just like they wanted to take the lead and negotiate with Iraq.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 11:42:08 AM EST
    Assuming that Iran is working toward nuclear weapons, that they're likely to succeed unless they're persuaded or forced to abandon it, and that that's a bad thing: It'd be swell if talking to Iran would work. What evidence is there that talking holds the solution? It hasn't worked so far. It seems that talking is just a stalling tactic for Iran. Continuing to rely on talk gives Iran more time to develop their weapons, and increases the risk that by the time we try stronger measures it'll be too late. I'm not saying we should abandon talk entirely -- if they say "we give up" we should listen -- but international sanctions are the right tool for right now. The UN should be able to handle those. If the UN screws up, it may be a choice between A) sending US troops in and B) letting Iran have The Bomb. If this turns into a shooting war it'll be because Iran refuses to accept reasonable compromise (the continued existance of Israel) or because the UN refuses to do its job. That said, let's make sure our intelligence is more sure about Iran than it was about Iraq.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    It's no longer clear that Iran can be prevented from developing a weapon. We'd better have contingency strategies that include a nuclear Iran.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#5)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:27:13 PM EST
    Talks have not been a sucess simply because the US does not want them to be a sucess. As has been well documented Iran is a signee of the the Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as additional agreements with the IAEA. They have been inspected numerous times and nothing has been found. So under the NPT and additional agreements they are entitled to uranium enrichment for the purpose of nuclear power. The US and Europe after having been beaten on by the US do not want the Iraniansd to do any enrichment thus changing the agreements already in place. see these articles link1 link2 link3 And what kind of plot would this be without fabricated data link4 Why would they want nuclear power? A back of the envelope calculation assuming there are no more major finds and pumping proceeds at the same rate as today, Iran will be out of oil within 40 years. The US position is as usual hypocritical since they do not demand that Israel sign the NPT and submit its program to international inspection Israel is thought to have over 200 nuclear weapons; the US never punished pakistan for the Khan diaster, and now the US is going to try and help India get nuclear techology also without inspections. This pictures in this article demonstrates why Iran might want nuclear weapons. of course if the goal of this administration was to promote peace and stability in the region, then the region wide banning of nuclear weapons might be an appropiate goal. But since the true goal is the control of the region by either the US itself or its proxies the selective banning of nuclear weapons combined with an expansion of the nuclear arsenal of our "friends" is what is happening. A final question; When the US uses tactical nukes, the ones that go into the ground 20 ft before exploding, in the upcoming attack on Iran, will we be safer from terrorism?

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 02:19:45 PM EST
    US got em. UK got em, Russia got em, France got em, India got em, Pakistan got em, China got em.... Why would Iran want nuclear weapons? Maybe because if you don't have them you run the risk of getting invaded. I say get every country on earth to a nonproliferation/disarmament summit.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    kdog, Here here! I second that idea.

    I say get every country on earth to a nonproliferation/disarmament summit.
    Good idea, except that the day after the all sides sign an agreement, most of them/us will secretly go back to their/our old tricks, and we'll be right back where we started from. Political agreements of this type are, on the whole, essentially worthless and a waste of time.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#9)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 02:56:42 PM EST
    sarc, I'm not sure I agree with you. There would have to be extensive, open, and unrestrained restrictions. The other problem is that as the world runs out of oil, there will be a mad dash to nuclear power simply because of there being no alternative that will deliver what people want. Enriched Uranium might become the next oil. Countries unable to produce enriched uranium would be at the economic mercy of those who can. As nuclear energy becomes more common the possibility of accidents, theft of uranium etc becomes greater.

    You may be right soc, but my sense tells me that if a signee considers it to be in its best interest to secretly, or not so secretly even, to restart research/production of nuclear arms, they would do so with little hesitation.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#11)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 03:08:47 PM EST
    This is Israel’s problem, Saudi Arabia’s problem, the UAE’s problem, Russia’s problem, … When Iran is about to develop the capability to put a nuke in the US we’ll need to start figuring. Until then, let their neighbors deal with them. And anyway, why would Iran want to nuke the US? Oh, our enormous footprint overseas. Well, I have a solution for that.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#12)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 03:13:21 PM EST
    You may be right soc, but my sense tells me that if a signee considers it to be in its best interest to secretly, or not so secretly even, to restart research/production of nuclear arms, they would do so with little hesitation.
    It becomes harder to hide an enrichment program aimed at producing weapons grade uranium because of the number of centrifuges needed. At least thats my understanding. Enrichment for fuel does not have to attain the same purity.

    Fair enough soc, detection of the production of weapon grade nuclear material may well be easier than that of non-weapon grade. I still doubt that if a signee felt that it needed weapon-grade nuclear materials, per kdog's summit comment, that it would not and could not successfully pursue them.

    ...and as we are aware, even the threat of pursuing them is quite effective.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#15)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 03:38:32 PM EST
    “It becomes harder to hide an enrichment program aimed at producing weapons grade uranium because of the number of centrifuges needed. At least thats my understanding. Enrichment for fuel does not have to attain the same purity.”
    Well, this is what I know about that. First, you don’t need even a single centrifuge. Centrifuge enrichment is relatively new on the scene, replacing several other more inefficient and time consuming enrichment processes that were initially used to create US and Soviet weapons. Iran owns a second-generation gaseous diffusion centrifuge that, like the DPRK, was purchased from Pakistan. This particular centrifuge design is known as the Zippe centrifuge, and is significantly more efficient than the first generation gas diffusion centrifuges. If you want serious production it certainly would be advantageous to run these things in serial, or serial and parallel. But you could always re-spin the last cycle’s yield.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#16)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 03:39:40 PM EST
    Now, if you want to find out if someone is making weapons grade fuel you would simply swab their centrifuge and examine the purity of the residue. Simple enough. Purity is another issue. For a light water reactor less than 20% U235 is needed, typically between 12-19%, 85% U235 is considered weapons grade, but it is also possible to make a crude but fissile weapon from 20% U235, some speculate even less. This is the kind of bomb most folks think the DPRK has, that is one fueled with weapons usable and not weapons grade uranium.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    Uhh, haven't we seen this movie before? Gee, if my country bordered a country that insisted on preemptive strikes and had nukes, I would say I had/was developing nukes too. It's MAD I tell you, MAD!!! BTW, iran's pres, after saying israel should be bombed also offered an alternative: Put the nation of israel in germany. Seems logical to me. Germany was the nation who had the ovens and started the war.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 05:16:19 PM EST
    So Sailor, you agreeing with the President of Iran?

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 05:42:31 PM EST
    Seriously Sailor? Are you kidding? Maybe we could send all the blacks back to Africa like the KKK suggested. I mean we made them leave there. Or we could give NYC back to the ducth and let all the Inidians move back into conneticut. Iran is a dangerous radical reliogous state that doesn't need to have a bomb. Resonable people can disagree how to solve the problem but no one can favor Iran having nuclear weapons. We should try the security council, sanctions etc... but if they don't work we must be prepared to at least try and bomb the facilities like the Isreali's have before. If we don't Isreal will.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 06:20:37 PM EST
    Logical points were made. Personal attacks followed. So tell me sir, do your attack poodles do any other tricks? Et al, I'm sure there is a term for one who equates folks ripped from their homeland and subject to slavery with folks who were ripped from their homeland, subjected to concentration camps, freed and given someone else's land; but that term escapes me at the moment.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 07:27:12 PM EST
    From the Nelson Report, via Laura Rozen:
    We can’t plausibly end Iran’s nuclear program by force without a full scale invasion and overthrow of the Iranian government. Given the serious strains we are experiencing with Iraq—a country one third the size of Iran—that option is not plausible for some time to come. Air raids are an option and the plans have been drawn. But air attacks will unify Iranian public sentiment in support of their radical young leader, and at best will simply delay their weapons program.


    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 07:30:00 PM EST
    Why not strive for nuclear disarmament in the region. The old crazy mullah crap is just that. The US did not want a peaceful solution and has done everything it could to prevent it; from making stuff up, to moving the goal posts. It should also be remembered that it was the invasion of Iraq that got the hardliners back in power. Iran and Syria has been on the neocons target list since about 1995 and the "clean Break" proposal. Google that if you want to see some familiar names.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 07:46:33 PM EST
    SD writes:
    Talks have not been a sucess simply because the US does not want them to be a sucess.
    We haven't been involved in the talks, but it is our fault? Huh? I mean, damn we're good. You wrote:
    It becomes harder to hide an enrichment program aimed at producing weapons grade uranium because of the number of centrifuges needed. At least thats my understanding.
    And if your understanding is wrong? What then? Pick a number. 10? 20? Does 10 mean they never have bombs? Where do you get this stuff? punisher - And what proof does your source have that we can't destroy their weapons program by air attacks? It seems to me that we can easily shut down the entrances/exits from even their hardened facilities. And another name for a facility that you can't get to is "hollow hole in the ground."

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 07:56:59 PM EST
    PPJ: what proof does your source have that we can't destroy their weapons program by air attacks? Sorry Jim, all I've got is what I linked to at Laura Rozen's very trustworthy blog. The Nelson Report is by subscription only:
    Chris Nelson is editor of The Nelson Report, a daily briefing on international economic policy issues, foreign and security policy matters and their relationship to politics in Washington. This daily briefing constitutes the core element of relationships with clients who also have direct access to Mr. Nelson for confidential communications in response to their specific needs and policy interests.


    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 08:37:20 PM EST
    PPJ:what proof does your source have that we can't destroy their weapons program by air attacks? Here's an answer to your question. From WaPo, By William M. Arkin | January 17, 2006:
    Last May, I wrote about U.S. preparations for "global strike," the preemptive attack plan developed by the Bush administration. Global strike, formally known as CONPLAN 8022, refers to a specific set of contingencies to attack weapons of mass destruction...
    Given that the justification for preemption and for the global strike capability is to prevent "another 9/11," this time one with WMD, it wouldn't be relevant whether the United States was confident that it knew where ever last gram of Iran's weapons were. The focus would be against Iran's ability to deliver a WMD. The objective would be to forestall another 9/11. A strike that halted preparations for attack and set back the program so that it was no longer an immediate threat would be a success under the Bush administration's plan.
    This is why commentators who warn that the United States does not know where all of Iran's nuclear capabilities are missing the point. Under global strike, the objective wouldn't be to "disarm" Iran: It would be to stop it.
    So, the current plan for air strikes does not have as an objective the destruction of Iranian nuclear capability.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#26)
    by BigTex on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 09:24:00 PM EST
    PPJ - I hear the same as Punisher. The mullas learned from what Israel did to Iraq and dispersed their facilities. We could degrade it, but not be sure that we eliminate the capability. Soc - with all due respect, your assessment is way out there. The Russians offered to allow Iran to enrich on Russian soil. The Iranians refused. That's a sign of bad faith. The Russians could have been, and still could be, good mediators of this situation, they have offered what should be an acceptanle solution if the enrichment was solely for peaceful purposes. The fact that the Iranians do not want to aaccept the compromise seems to indicate ill intentions. Rather than think that they want nukes, they may simply want to skim a little off of the top and make dirty bombs for use in thwe near future. If they exploded a dirty bomb, who would actually on in and remove the mullas? Answer = no one. We are spread too thin, and no one else has the spine to do so. Israel might want to, but they do not have the capability to do so.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#27)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:23:20 AM EST
    BigTex
    Soc - with all due respect, your assessment is way out there. The Russians offered to allow Iran to enrich on Russian soil. The Iranians refused. That's a sign of bad faith.
    You dont saw why its way out there. Yours it but an empty claim based on the fact you dont like the answer; with all due respect. This picks a point in time and ignores the rest of the negotiations. Secondly, why shouldn't Iran be allowed to abide by the NPT and the additional agreements with the IAEA. Isn't that showing bad faith? Where are the calls for the punishment of Pakistan given what we know about the Khan network. Lets say Iran has a nuclear weapon. What are they going to do with it given Israel has over 200? I didn't see [unless I missed it] anyone answer my question about what the political/terrorist fall out is going to be when the US uses tactical nukes. Lets a throw some gas on that fire.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:23:58 AM EST
    Sailor: You need to read up on the history of Palestine. Jordan occupies most of Palestine. Jordanians and Palestineans fought a war in the 60s with thousands of Palestineans being killed. Why not relocate Jordan?

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 05:56:05 AM EST
    soccerdad: question about what the political/terrorist fall out is going to be when the US uses tactical nukes Your question was:
    When the US uses tactical nukes ... will we be safer from terrorism?
    I've thought about this since you asked it yesterday. It's a scary thing to consider, and so far the best answer I can come up with is another question that frames the potential consequences in a context that raises even more questions about the nature, and especially the causes, of terror. Thinking about it also reminds me of a quote hanging on the wall in my office that is meant to be a positive point related to sales and business, but I think applies equally in a negative sense in this discussion: "The best way to predict the future is to create it". My question is this: Japan, I think you'd agree, is technologically capable of building nuclear weapons. If Japan had not become a friend to the US by the time their technology had progressed enough, do you think thay would be restrained morally or in any other way, from using a nuclear weapon against the US in retaliation?

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#30)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 06:27:35 AM EST
    Japan, I think you'd agree, is technologically capable of building nuclear weapons. If Japan had not become a friend to the US by the time their technology had progressed enough, do you think thay would be restrained morally or in any other way, from using a nuclear weapon against the US in retaliation?
    The use of any weapon like nukes would depend on the evaluation of consequences. I don't think Japan even if it had nukes would now use them only for retaliation, if only because of the relative strength of the US. Similarly, if Iran had a couple, they would not lob them at Israel, simply because Israel has 200 to fire back. IMO the use of tactical nukes does a couple of things. First it lowers the threshold for any other nation to use them. Second it will be seen as a serious escalation of events in the mideast. If we are the first to use nukes, do we then have any moral authority to complain when a terrorist uses a dirty bomb. My guess is that it would galvanize all non-European countries, as well as some of them, against us. What would they do about it? Not much militarily, but they could band together and attack our economy which is so dependent on foreign capital. They could shut off or greatly slow the flow of oil to the US. The real fear is that once this genie is out of the bottle, its a steep slippery slope [cliff?] to more serious nuclear war. Think Pakistan in the hands of fundementalist muslims. Todays rapture index is 155

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#31)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 06:41:05 AM EST
    SD- I think France is taking this ‘crazy mullah’ business seriously. President Chirac took the opportunity yesterday to clarify France’s position on the use of its nuclear arsenal. They will not preclude the use of nuclear weapons against a State that uses ‘terrorism’ against France. I think all but the dimmest understood this to be a warning to Iran.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 07:06:59 AM EST
    soccerdad:
    My guess is that it would galvanize all non-European countries, as well as some of them, against us... The real fear is that once this genie is out of the bottle, its a steep slippery slope [cliff?] to more serious nuclear war.
    Exactly. "The best way to predict the future is to create it..." I think that is what using tactical nukes against Iran will accomplish. Japan was one country, Islam is spread through many countries, so it was not an exact parallel. Had Japan's society been only part of a society and ideology spanning many countries at the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, what consequences then? I've never met a genie myself, but I don't imagine that they want to go back into bottles, once they're out...

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 07:15:54 AM EST
    punisher - I apologize for asking the question. My point was, and is: If you close down the exits/entrances, the fcailities are useless. You don't need nukes to do that. And no, you don't have to completely stop it, just slow it down until the present regime is replaced. And if we have to use troops, I think the doom sayers underestimate our abilities. Remember, we don't fight fixed battles anymore, and I believe the Iranian military is no better than Iraq's. Remember. It couldn't defeat Iraq.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 07:23:52 AM EST
    Jim: If you close down the exits/entrances, the fcailities are useless. You don't need nukes to do that. You're right, there. And one of those facilities is the Persian Gulf: the waterways through which the oil the US economy cannot function without passes. [Iran] could shut off or greatly slow the flow of oil to the US. If Iran were to close down the exits/entrances, the waterways are useless.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 07:55:51 AM EST
    "Doomsayers underestimate our abilities". It couldnt beat Iraq 20 years ago. Though with the help of Ollie(Rosenberg)Norths wmds,they certainly gave it the old college try. But, the situation has mutated just slightly from the way it was 20 years ago - or hadnt you noticed? When you start arm chair pirouetting about U.S ground forces going into Iran - into that very well defended(unlike Iraq),much more problematic terrain,with 2,200 dead already under our belts (but whos countin?), I think along with the neocon cocktail the nurse needs to check your blood sugar.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#36)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 08:09:21 AM EST
    pig - I se your point but I think its different from the one I'm making. France is talking about responding, the US is talking about pre-emptive action based on the"crazy mullah" justification. Why does the US only use sticks rather than sticks and carrots.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#37)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 08:12:05 AM EST
    fun with numbers. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. If we anger 1 in 10,000 enough so that they turn to terrorism ya got 100,000 terrorists running around.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 09:24:35 AM EST
    Voices in this administration consider the diplomatic side of diplomacy to be for the weak guys. After 9/11, the tough guys have been in charge. Remember this? GWB, Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000:
    If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us... If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way, but if we’re humble nation, they’ll respect us.
    Where did the humility in our foreign policy go? The president has said that 9/11 changed everything. Everything? Every single thing? Doesn't that sound like an exaggeration? The list of things that haven't changed is infinite. And this hasn't been idle talk. His foreign policy has too often been absolute, unilateral, and arrogant. John Bolton is the perfect UN representative for a tough, unilateral, and undiplomatic administration. I would suggest that we are now in an impossible situation where there is no adequate solution, military or otherwise. Iran will ultimately have its nuke. We could use force to slow this down, but only at the high cost of driving the nation deeper into the hands of the radicals. Much of the population would prefer a democratic and secular Iran. Those pro-Western Iranians got their wake-up call in 2002 that this administration wasn't going to strengthen their position, when they were told that they were in an axis of evil. If Bush attacks Iran, he'll be doing the radical's work for them, and destroying the weakened secular position. He could be fertilizing the birth of an Iran/Iraq radical shiite super-state.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:52:35 AM EST
    edger - If we get a few cities nuked our need for oil will be greatly reduced. And Iran can not shut down those entrances except for a very short period of time. jondee - And why do you think we would send troops into a "well protected" killing field. I told you we don't fight fixed battles anymore. And who is "Rosenberg?" SD - And 99.999999999% would like to see Iran shut down. At least that's what you keep telling is. Okay, they should go shut it down. punisher writes:
    Much of the population would prefer a democratic and secular Iran.
    Then they should start taking actions to demonstrate that they want the radicals out. If they want do their own work, someone else will have to. As for "humility." It and 7 bucks will get you an average glass of wine at almost any bar.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:10:05 AM EST
    PPJ to me: Then they should start taking actions to demonstrate that they want the radicals out. 12/19/02 - STUDENT DEMONSTRATIONS IN IRAN
    Thousands of students have taken to the streets to call for an end to authoritarian rule in Iran...
    Protests were stepped up on December 7th, National Students Day in Iran. The protests were peaceful, until broken up by radical Islamists of the basiji [bah-see-jee] militia...
    The protests reflect the growing impatience of the people of Iran. They want genuine democracy, not a regime manipulated by reactionary clerics. Hard-line Islamists are a minority in Iran's parliament. But they control the police, the judiciary, and the Guardian Council...
    Results of recent elections demonstrated that the people of Iran want political reform and an end to repression. A poll found that nearly seventy-five percent of Iranians favored dialogue with the United States.
    Pro-Western Iranians to PPJ: "Thanks for noticing, dude!"

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:14:03 AM EST
    PPJ: As for "humility." It and 7 bucks will get you an average glass of wine at almost any bar. Humility will buy you an average bottle of wine for 5 bucks less from 2 Buck Chuck at Trader Joes!

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:27:00 AM EST
    PPJ: Then they should start taking actions to demonstrate that they want the radicals out. If they want do their own work, someone else will have to. Reminds me of my all-time favorite article from the Onion: Serbia Deploys Peacekeeping Forces To U.S. November 15, 2000:
    BELGRADE–Serbian president Vojislav Kostunica deployed more than 30,000 peacekeeping troops to the U.S. Monday, pledging full support to the troubled North American nation as it struggles to establish democracy.
    Serbian peacekeeping troops patrol Washington, D.C. "We must do all we can to support free elections in America and allow democracy to gain a foothold there," Kostunica said...
    "For democracy to take root and flourish, it must be planted in the rich soil of liberty. And the cornerstone of liberty is elections free of tampering or corruption," Kostunica said. "Should America prove itself incapable of learning this lesson on its own, the international community may be forced to take stronger measures."


    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#43)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:40:03 AM EST
    SD - And 99.999999999% would like to see Iran shut down. At least that's what you keep telling is. Okay, they should go shut it down.
    Never said that. Just keep making that nonsense up.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:40:58 AM EST
    But joking aside, this isn't about whether Iranians get democracy or not. It's about our safety. This administration's decisions have not been supportive of the growth of democracy in Iran, have probably had the opposite effect, and the net effect has been to make us less safe and weakened our current position and limited our options in relation to their nuclear program.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#45)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    In fact the influence of the radicals was on the wan until we attacked Iraq. The radicals took that opportunity to do some fear mongering to regain power. Same approach as the Repubs. have used, i.e. fear mongering

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 12:58:07 PM EST
    edger - If we get a few cities nuked our need for oil will be greatly reduced. Jim, I have no idea what kind of a point you were trying to make here...but...well...whatever works for you...

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:59:59 PM EST
    PPJ, with our nuclear arsenal, we could level Iran to the ground if they were to set off one or several nukes in America. I know that, I don't know if anyone else here had that thought cross their mind besides me. Paranoia aside, if Iran were to attack America first, they would be vunerable to attack from the Israelis who would correctly conclude that they would be on the hit list after us, and would be justified on the basis of said attack of hitting Iran first, based on its' recent rhetorical and military history. Keep in mind that if the Iranians were to attack Israel first, they would be vunerable to our arsenal, and as in the first example, would be justifiably targets for a 'pre-emptive strike'. So you've just brought up another phantom menace that you fail to scare others with here. What else is new?

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:08:29 PM EST
    DA, what you say makes perfect sense. I don't count on the fundamentalist leader of the USA to make rational decisions, so I wouldn't want to bet the farm that the fundamentalist leaders of Iran will make sensible decisions either.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#49)
    by BigTex on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 07:00:05 PM EST
    IMO the use of tactical nukes does a couple of things. First it lowers the threshold for any other nation to use them.
    Agree with you there. Then again, that is if we use tactical nukes, which is probablly not going to happen. The bigger concern is that it will rally Iranian pride and any chance for internal revolution will go up in smoke, literally. But as to the larger question on Iran and what to do... yes the focusing on Iran's failure to accept the Russian compromise is focusing on a specific event (thuogh I would say it is a coninuing point in time, not an instant because they could end the standoff tomorrow by agreeing), but it is the telling event. Iran has nothing to fear from Russia in the enrichment process. Iran would rather have UN sanctions, which likely will hurt the masses but not the leadership, than have the enrichment done across her border. The question is why? Maybe there is another plausable answer as to whay, but it looks like the only reason is that Iran has nefarious purposes. If all that Iran wants is nuclear energy then the Russian compromise ends the problem. Iran gets her energy, the rest of the world gets assurance that they aren't going to have to see a nuclear Iran. This isn't a zero sum game. This is a possible win-win situation, only Iran keeps acting like it is zero sum game. Do you think that we wouldn't hit them? Maybe before Iraq that was a rational line of thought. Do they think that we will stop Israel from striking them? Even if we did, that doesn't resolve the problem, only takes one wrinkle out of the equation. This isn't a situation where we are saying that Iran can't have nuclear power, rather it is a situation where we are saying a state sponsor of terror can't be trusted to use the nuclear material for peaceful purposes. If there is another rational reason that Iran is not accepting the compromise Soc, I'm all ready to hear it. I hope that my conclusions are incorrect, but as it stands see nothing to support alternative conclusions.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#50)
    by BigTex on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 07:00:05 PM EST
    IMO the use of tactical nukes does a couple of things. First it lowers the threshold for any other nation to use them.
    Agree with you there. Then again, that is if we use tactical nukes, which is probablly not going to happen. The bigger concern is that it will rally Iranian pride and any chance for internal revolution will go up in smoke, literally. But as to the larger question on Iran and what to do... yes the focusing on Iran's failure to accept the Russian compromise is focusing on a specific event (thuogh I would say it is a coninuing point in time, not an instant because they could end the standoff tomorrow by agreeing), but it is the telling event. Iran has nothing to fear from Russia in the enrichment process. Iran would rather have UN sanctions, which likely will hurt the masses but not the leadership, than have the enrichment done across her border. The question is why? Maybe there is another plausable answer as to whay, but it looks like the only reason is that Iran has nefarious purposes. If all that Iran wants is nuclear energy then the Russian compromise ends the problem. Iran gets her energy, the rest of the world gets assurance that they aren't going to have to see a nuclear Iran. This isn't a zero sum game. This is a possible win-win situation, only Iran keeps acting like it is zero sum game. Do you think that we wouldn't hit them? Maybe before Iraq that was a rational line of thought. Do they think that we will stop Israel from striking them? Even if we did, that doesn't resolve the problem, only takes one wrinkle out of the equation. This isn't a situation where we are saying that Iran can't have nuclear power, rather it is a situation where we are saying a state sponsor of terror can't be trusted to use the nuclear material for peaceful purposes. If there is another rational reason that Iran is not accepting the compromise Soc, I'm all ready to hear it. I hope that my conclusions are incorrect, but as it stands see nothing to support alternative conclusions.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 07:22:09 PM EST
    Dark Avenger - You are using old logic - i.e. the MAD theory. Problem is, that assumes both sides are rational. From his statements, the Iranian boss is not. edger - You wrote:
    You're right, there. And one of those facilities is the Persian Gulf: the waterways through which the oil the US economy cannot function without passes.
    Now do you see the connection? SD - I was just noting that you would still have a bunch of "moderate" Moslems even after all the new terrorists.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#52)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 08:10:40 PM EST
    Iran would rather have UN sanctions,
    There's no way China is going to vote for sanctions, thats what they are counting on.
    The question is why?
    A couple of things. First they have complied with all the agreements and signed the NPT and had extensive inspections, so I'm sure they are mad about the west essentially going back on their word. Secondly, if they can not make their own fuel they will be forever at the mercy of other countries to get the fuel. Faced with a similar situation with oil, the US has stationed troops through out the middle east as well as many of the countries that formaly were part of the USSR, invaded Irag, tried to assassinate Chavez etc. The US should act to defuse the tension in the area instead of try to club everyone over the head. Where are the carrots. Perle has been scheming to overthrow Iran, Iraq and Syria sine his 1995 "Clean Break" proposal, Now with the oil guys in power in the WH everyone will make some big money and the crude will continue to flow. Of course the price at the pump will not include the increased terrorism that will accompany or continued occupation of the ME.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 05:52:53 AM EST
    SD write:
    Secondly, if they can not make their own fuel they will be forever at the mercy of other countries to get the fuel.
    SD, Iran is the fourth largest producer of oil in the world. They are not short of fuel to power electric production and they won't be in the future.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#54)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 06:11:50 AM EST
    PPJ as I wrote the other day, a back of the envelope calculation assuming no new finds and pumping at the same rate as today shows that the oil will be gone in 40 years. Thats not a long time when it takes years to get a nuke plant up and running.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 08:09:45 AM EST
    SD - The "run out of oil" date is a moving target. It has been changed many times, just as "global cooling," has now become "global warming." The date always assumes no new discoveries, no improvement in use - more efficent cars, etc., and is basically a "scare'em" tactic. And no, it doesn't take 40 years to build a nucelar power plant. If you eliminated the lawsuits from our environmental wacko friends it could be done in 5 years max.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#56)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 08:38:52 AM EST
    .
    If you eliminated the lawsuits from our environmental wacko friends it could be done in 5 years max.
    They have plans to build more than 1. Secondly they are not going to pump the fields dry they will need it for thier own consumption. Maybe they are not going to wait until the last minute like the morons in Washington.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 06:26:16 PM EST
    "Rosenbeng" : a traitor who sells weapons to countries threatening the U.S,and,in your own words,"The entire middle east." Actually though, the first Rosenberg(who only sold "secrets" ), remains in some peoples minds alleged.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2006 at 06:44:23 PM EST
    Thats in responce to Jims query.

    Re: U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 01:46:01 PM EST
    1/23/06 What is the response of Iran to the U.S. or Israelis threat?
    "We have our sensors in place in the U.S., Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and most Arab countries. We know ahead of the time when they are coming, and since Mr. Bush has given American democracy along with the preemptive strike as the right of everybody in the world, we are going to use it and use it effectively. We are present in most of the military briefings of the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq. As soon as we see that it is imminent we hit them and hit them hard... Whether the U.S. or Israel attacks us, we will consider it as Israeli attack since we know how much power they have over the U.S. political and decision-making system." If the attack happens, that will trigger the nuclear efforts of Iran. We will definitely go underground and speed up nuclear weapon production, since there will be no choice except to have them and have them soon. Right now we do not need nuclear weapons which are a liability rather than an asset, because we do not have hostile enemy which we cannot smash when we want to. The country has been able to stand on its feet for the last 2,500 years and will do so in the future. Look at the last war we had with Iraq, which by the way, was shortest war we had during the last 200 years." More...