Iran Nuclear Standoff

[dtrain44]

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding on this issue. Iran has clearly violated its agreements with the IAEA (and, therefore, its NPT obligations). The question is one of degree. Since we have no clear evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, these breaches are at a fairly minor level. Of course, American and IAEA demands are now going well beyond the obligations of the NPT regime or those imposed on Iran by their safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

Summary of dialogue:

Iran: We will not fully, openly, and honestly account for all of our nuclear activities. There is no substantive evidence of significant progress toward a nuclear weapon and that's enough. (wrong because their agreement requires better access for inspectors)

USA/IAEA: Iran is in violation of their safeguards agreement. We will not certify compliance until Iran abandons enrichment. (wrong because the NPT, agreed upon by all parties in the discussion, specifically allows Iran to enrich as much uranium as they like)

Two other points: the United States and other nuclear powers, in Article VI of the NPT, committed to take significant steps in good faith toward nuclear disarmament. This is probably the clearest case of noncompliance in the nuclear proliferation regime today. Additionally, Iran has been cheated by multinational nuclear cooperation in the past, most notably by the French in the 1970s.

With all of that said, I firmly believe that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. However, the answer is to work harder on the nuclear nonproliferation regime, which has been astoundingly successful when compared to the proliferation potential observed by many throughout the Cold War and beyond. The bully, demand, and ignore international law approach isn't just hypocritical: it's ineffective. The regime says what it says: now let's provide interlocking security guarantees and build consensus.....

[chadtm80]

what I don't udnerstand is those that say - let's talk. We have tried talking to them? See what I mean? They have been going on to no avail. Iran will not comply with the UN resolutions or international law as it stands.

Monday, July 02, 2007 - ?2005 IranMania.com
LONDON, July 2 (IranMania) - Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said that the date of the second round of Iran-US talks on Iraq has not been determined yet, IRNA reported.

The first round of Iran-US talks on Iraq was held on May 28 in Baghdad at ambassadorial level. Iran's Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi-Qomi represented Iran and Ryan Crocker acted as US envoy.

"During the recent visit by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to Tehran, Iraq's invitation for holding the second round of the Iran-US talks was renewed," Hosseini said at his weekly press conference.

He added, "Iran has studied the first round of the talks. By the time the US officials clarify their stance on the issue, our response will be on the agenda."

He said, "In the first round of talks, we criticized the incorrect US policies on Iraq and presented solutions.

"Regretfully, in remark made by the US officials, we see no serious determination to correct the previous approaches."

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleVi ... nt+Affairs

Iran limits new nuclear negotiator

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - ?2005 IranMania.
Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment as required by the United Nations Security Council, said participants in the meeting who spoke under normal diplomatic rules.

And just hours before the talks, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, repeated his vow never to give in on that issue.

"Iran will not retreat one iota," he said on state-run television on a trip to Armenia, adding, "We are in favor of talks, but we will not negotiate with anyone about our right to nuclear technology."

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleVi ... entAffairs


Iran refuses to conceed on what is required of them. Talks are doing no good.
Unfortunately we do not live in an idealistic world where everyone wants to live in peace. I wish we did. And if you think everyone does desire that then I have a bridge I will sell you in china! There are those that it doesn't matter one bit if they go to war if it will accomplish their goals of destroying those that are not like them. We are a peace loving country whether others want to believe it or not. We will not allow ourselves to be bullied by others to the point it risks our own security, though and if that means we have to keep those that have less than pure desires for our countries peaceful living, then we will whatever it takes to keep them from bringing harm to us on our own soil.

Ya Artist they have tried.. But not ONCE have they said "Pretty Pretty Please" so there for the talks are null and void.. Must use the magic word

Its ok to be diplomatic.. Who isn't for that.. But its not always going to work.. And its fullish to continue trying that, that does not work

[HURAKAN]

dtrain44, A clear voice in the darkness of night! Thank you.

[coriolis]

here is a proposal that maybe all could consider and debate

Agree upon an international law that prohibits the usage of nuclear weaponary under all circumstances, except when the following conditions are met.

1. Retaliation for a nuclear or chemical attack upon a state's civilian population

2. Retaliation for any tyoe of biological attack, including upon the military as that would have the possibility to spread to the civilian population.

3. Tactical usage of a nuclear weapon would be premitted under the following
A. used on the attacking state's own soil with fallout being contained within such state
B. Used strictly upon advancing enemy troops within 100km of the capital city
C. Used strictly as a defensive weapon and not part of a robust counter attack

or am I too niave in thinnking that Kim Jong mentally Ill and his Iranian allies would abide by these conditions

We don't have to count on those birds abiding by those conditions. We just put them on notice that we will retaliate - period. Civilization has survived bigger disasters than a couple nukes going off. If your enemy is not afraid to die and you are afraid to die, then he's got the advantage.

We need to stop wringing our hands and wasting our time and energy to make the world safe for Haliburton. In the mean time we should spend those resources on alternative energy and reaching the goal of not needing their oil. Our foreigh policy should take the longer view like the Russians were very good at doing. We should avoid hot confrontrations, play people off against each other, be patient, make things difficult for them where we can, beef up our domestic security, and drag it out. Meanwhile, we'll continue buying the oil while we wean off of it.

Also, we should get over the notion that it is our destiny to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world. A lot of those countries never had freedom and doemocracy for their entire history. For some of those countries an authoritarian leader is what's needed to keep them running.

We have enough trouble with freedom and democracy ourselves. Freedom turns into license and democracy turns into a pork-fest with the rich, powerful, and ambitious preoccupied with "getting theirs" and keeping the poor, weak, and lazy placated with the dole.

Maybe its US that needs to change. We're greedy, fat, and lazy, expecting the world to bow down to us. Historically, the signs are that we are or will be in decline. We need to get our own house in order and realize that you can't change others, but you can change yourself. If we're not up to the task, then our days our numbered.

(edit) sorry for the rant, but as you can see I have a different perspective on the whole issue. I'm not saying that anybody has to agree with me.

[cycloneye]

.U.S. impose sanctions against Iran



Things continue to heat up.Now lets see what response Iran will have.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

As long as Iran still has the support of Russia and/or China, they frankly do not give a damn I fear. After all the US, and most other Western countries, haven't done all that much business with them since 1979. These unilateral sanctions are less than meaningless.

[HURAKAN]

For the Muslim world this is just another aggression from the Infidels towards them. Is not going to solve anything.

Like I said before, if you attack Iran and want to depose its government, don't expect anything less than what you're getting in Iraq, guerrila wars, one after the other.

[Nimbus]

At least it's not as bad as 1973 when Egypt attacked Israel.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Like I said before, if you attack Iran and want to depose its government, don't expect anything less than what you're getting in Iraq, guerrila wars, one after the other.

I actually agree with you. Any new government imposed upon Iran by a Western Power, will be resented by the majority of the population which in spite of everything is still very patriotic, and will be doomed to failure. The change must come from within, still we (Western Countries) should do everything in our power to encourage such change, at least covertly.

The nuclear issue is a separate one in my view, which sadly might have no solution other than the use of force. For once Iran has significant nuclear capacity; we are in a whole new ball game folks.

[cycloneye]

Below is the response from Iran to the sanctions that the United States imposed against them.

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's military used its feet this week to send a clear message to the United States and Israel.

A colorful inspection exercise staged for Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and broadcast on Iranian TV featured precision drill teams massing into an American flag with a swastika and a Star of David, each "stabbed" by a formation of the Zulfiqar, the legendary scimitar of the Islamic leader Ali.

Khamenei is shown in the broadcast inspecting the drill teams, which chant to him, "Khamenei, we are your soldiers. Khamenei, at your command," according to a translation provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

Click here to view video at MEMRI.

One of the military formations spells out the words, "National Unity," MEMRI reported.

The announcer then tells viewers, " The army of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the contemporary Zulfiqar — the sword of Ali."

He goes on to say: "The faces of these warriors are radiant with love of the revolution. Together with such mythical heroes, once again we can chant epic poems about the aspirations, and relive the memory of those eight years of identity and bravery. We shout the glory of the name of Iran on the summit of fame and dignity. Our proud Iran is proud of you – its brave children."

The exhibition comes as the chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards shrugged off harsh new U.S. sanctions that are the most sweeping since 1979, saying "the corps is ready to defend the ideals of the revolution more than ever before."

Washington announced the sanctions Thursday targeting the Revolutionary Guards, which the U.S. accuses of supporting terrorism by backing Shiite militants in Iraq. The sanctions ban U.S. dealings with the extensive network of businesses believed linked to the Guards — and put stepped-up pressure on international banks to cut any ties with those firms.

So far, the official Iranian response has been defiant.

On Thursday, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, called the new U.S. measures "worthless and ineffective" and said they were "doomed to fail as before."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305360,00.html

[cycloneye]

More Response from IRAN to the U.S Sanctions

[LSU2001]

First of all let me start by saying that I highly respect everyone that has posted in this thread.
what I would like to know from those who propose more talk, more negotiations, etc is what are you willing to accomplish.
The more we talk the longer Iran has to work on their nuclear program. (if there is no weapons program why the secrecy)
Should the west stand by and allow a nuclear armed Iran ? (not saying they will be but should we allow it?)

If they are not willing to truthfully negotiate should the western powers continue to plead with them?

Many of you on this board are too young to remember the Iran hostage crisis. You don't remember the truly crappy economic times of the late 70's. I promise you they were not good times.

Iran has been a loose cannon in the Mid East for many years. They cannot be trusted and they will do whatever they can to not only take down Israel but also the US. I think it is telling that they call us the great Satan and Israel the lesser Satan or some such mess.

Talking is great, diplomacy is great but there comes a time where action is required. Will it be painful, will it be ugly, will it be absolutely horrible for all involved? YES YES YES
But if we care about our national interests and a future that does not include a very large dirty regional possible nuclear war in the mid east we cannot allow Iran the right to develop nuclear weapons. I firmly believe that they will take the first opportunity they have to use the ultimate weapon against their sworn enemies, namely the US and Israel.
My 2 Cents,
tim

Things are getting curious now that leaks are developing about the Israeli attack on Syria several weeks ago.
http://tinyurl.com/2rcc27

[Cryomaniac]

I think in the regard to the Syria / Israel business, and also Iran, I'm going to quote a Green Day song: "Talk is cheap, but lies are much better, my wallet's fat and so is my head"

As to what the west should do about Iran. I've stated many times that there was just cause to bomb Iran for the kidnapping of the British sailors earlier in the year, and I stand by that. As for the nuclear program, I think the best idea is a series of surgical strikes, backed up by ground forces as necessary. I have also been thinking about what Iran should do, although I'm not prepared to post that on a public forum.

[x-y-no]

Pakistan has a substantial nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver those weapons throughout the region. The Pakistani ISS practically created the Taliban and still have ties to them. The leadership of Al Qaeda shelters in Pakistani territory and the Pakistani government has nonetheless made a treaty granting substantial autonomy to the warlords who provide that shelter.

Despite all of this, we continue to support the Pakistani government and to treat them as a valued ally.

The Iranians would be fools to observe all this (and the contrast between this and our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq) and not to conclude that having a nuclear arsenal is the key to their security.

We condemn them for their support of Hizbollah and Hamas and for their Qods Force operations in Iraq, yet we support PKK operations in Iran, our own special forces conduct operations in Iran, we have historically provided massive support for terrorists in Afghanistan (operating against the Soviets didn't make the Mujahedin any less terrorists) and material support for both sides of the disastrous Iraq/Iran war. Not to mention our overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953 and the installation of a brutal dictator, whose notorious secret police we trained.

We are not innocent lambs here. I say all of this not to criticize the US - I'm an American and I support American interests. My point is that a position of righteous indignation when we get fed the same medicine we've been meting out for decades may play well at home but it doesn't pass the smell test in the outside world - and until we face up to that and deal more rationally and pragmatically with the situation we're crippling ourselves.

We obviously haven't forgotten realpoilitik - witness our relationship with Pakistan. I'm baffled and disturbed that our approach to Iraq, Iran and (until recently) North Korea have been so naive.

[Cryomaniac]

We are not innocent lambs here.

Neither side is innocent in this, or anything for that matter.

[x-y-no]

We are not innocent lambs here.

Neither side is innocent in this, or anything for that matter.

Exactly. That's the way the world is and has always been. Pretending otherwise may be great for internal consumption but it's lousy foreign policy. We've faced far worse challenges than this (Stalin makes Ahmedinejad look like an innocent puppy - and he really did have a nuclear arsenal, a huge army and ironclad control of his nation) without plunging into preemptive wars. And we did pretty darn well against those challenges too.

[Beam]

Exactly. That's the way the world is and has always been. Pretending otherwise may be great for internal consumption but it's lousy foreign policy. We've faced far worse challenges than this (Stalin makes Ahmedinejad look like an innocent puppy - and he really did have a nuclear arsenal, a huge army and ironclad control of his nation) without plunging into preemptive wars. And we did pretty darn well against those challenges too.

Ding ding. This is probably one of those most rational statements I've read about this situation. What began as a retaliatory action against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban after 9/11 turned into a preemptive strike against Iraq, and we've all seen how well that went. Now the focus is shifting more to Iran, and this time we need to stop underestimating the strength of communication. The North Korea situation was diffused with zero military action, and the same can almost certainly be done with Iran. Ahmedinejad is a joke compared to the other challenges we've braved with good old common-sense diplomacy and understanding.

Preemptive military action is a very dangerous habit for any nation to get into.
"The Empire Strikes First"

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

We condemn them for their support of Hizbollah and Hamas and for their Qods Force operations in Iraq, yet we support PKK operations in Iran, our own special forces conduct operations in Iran, we have historically provided massive support for terrorists in Afghanistan (operating against the Soviets didn't make the Mujahedin any less terrorists) and material support for both sides of the disastrous Iraq/Iran war. Not to mention our overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953 and the installation of a brutal dictator, whose notorious secret police we trained.

As the old saying goes; the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I do agree with you that most Western Countries would prefer, and are actively attempting, to divorce themselves from the reality of their past support for the Mujahedin in the 1970s and '80s. Still it happened, and responsibility has to be taken. Though by the same token one shouldn't forget the Geo-Political context in which this took place, that of the Cold War, and the role the Afghani defeat of the Soviets played it helping end it. It has been said that sometimes the only way to defeat evil is not with good, but with another kind of evil. I think the above is a perfect example of that argument.

[cycloneye]

My view is that the U.S. has to talk directly to Iran about them not helping with the iraq situation by helping the shiats.About the nuclear program the same talk to them has to take place.Look what has happened with North Korea recently,with the agreement from them to dismantle their nuclear program after diplomacy was the key there.The problem in Irans case is that the president of Iran is very hard to have talks with.But the U.S. can make a try.

[MiamiensisWx]

http://www.miamiherald.com/457/story/294233.html

Regardless of Iran, we are going to face an increasingly larger threat closer to home. Chavez is the boogeyman who receives scarce attention from the American and Western press. It's not a "terrorist" threat, but it could create economical quandaries and problems in Venezuela. This person clearly has been attempting to initiate a dictatorship. Venezuela has "Cuba" written on its emerging policies. Chavez has been a proponent and supporter of Fidel Castro's policies per his own words. Chavez isn't a deadly United States threat, but the emerging political structure in Venezuela could create some huge problems for numerous groups. Personally, I think we could eventually be waging a four-way war via Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and North Korea. I'm not moving into the politics of the situation, but I have been a keen observer.

An Iranian conflict would be quite disastrous if Turkey (God forbid other countries like China) gets involved with Iraq. I essentially argue that an Iranian war should be the last option on the table when you consider the geopolitical repercussions, economic situation, and stretched military operations on the ground. I do think some tougher diplomacy and ACTION (not militarily) is required. We should be very serious about further sanctions and stay true to our words (the UN structure is spineless), although I strongly suggest we should avoid an Iranian conflict at all costs. Note that this represents my two cents.

Finally, when do we realize that Saudi Arabia and China are not our friends?