Iran rejects Kerry nuke proposal

[BenReilly]

Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi has bluntly rejected a nuclear disarmament plan floated by US vice presidential hopeful John Edwards, calling it "campaigning."

Under the plan, thought to have originated with US presidential hopeful John Kerry, Iran could keep its nuclear power plants if it gave up the right to retain bomb-making nuclear fuel.

Floated to the Washington Post last week by Senator Edwards, the proposal was seen in some quarters as an indication that a Kerry presidency would take a dramaticaly different tack in its handling of relations with Iran, which is officially listed by the US as a state sponsor of terrorism -- in fact, as the "most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003."

Senator Edwards told the WPost that the proposal would represent a "great bargain" for Iran -- and that should Iran reject it, a Kerry administration would be forced to conclude that Iran actually was, as the Bush administration now contends, actively pursuing the weaponisation of nuclear materials.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=10082&cid=5&cname=Asia%20&%20Pacific

[Benito]

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=10082&cid=5&cname=Asia%20&%20Pacific

Kerry the man with the plans that won't work.

Maybe, Edwards can take Iran to court to make them stop their nuke plan that is what Edwards does best right?

[GringoTex]

Another example of Islamofascists wanting Bush to win.

[Benito]

Bush will probably win look who he is running against.

If they would have nominated a guy like Joe Biden I might even have voted for him. I always found him to be an extremely bright guy don't you agree?

[1953 4-2-4]

Disgusting that Kerry & Edwards are trying to float proposals like this to Iran. Luckily for America Iran are more honorable than the Democrats.

[BenReilly]

The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign is organizing the human shield campaign to protect Bushehr reactor, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Wednesday.

According to a spokesman for the group, 25,000 people have already signed up to participate in the shield campaign, Army Radio reported.

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami continues to insist that Iran's nuclear program is geared only toward the production of electricity. Iran's Nuclear Energy Council has decided the country needs to produce 7,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear power plants by 2021 to meet Iran's increasing electricity demands.

Khatami issued a "guarantee" not to seek atomic weapons, and warned Washington that it can't stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan without Teheran's help.


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1094613507272

[BenReilly]

Zionist Propaganda 9-9-04 (Max Boot, Olin Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations)


Hyped reports about an Israeli "mole" in the Pentagon are falling apart faster than the Kerry campaign. It now seems likely that the analyst in question was, at worst, guilty of mishandling a classified document, not espionage. According to news accounts, the memo he's accused of passing to pro-Israel lobbyists called for U.S. support of Iranian dissidents trying to overthrow their dictatorial government. This may not be spy-novel stuff, but it does raise an important question: Why hasn't President Bush implemented the recommendations reportedly contained in the Pentagon paper?

(...)

The State Department calls Iran the "most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world." Much of its support goes to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, but the 9/11 commission also reported that Al Qaeda members — including eight to 10 of those involved in the airplane attacks on the United States — were allowed to use Iran as a transit route to and from training camps in Afghanistan. A number of Al Qaeda operatives remain in Iran, ostensibly under house arrest but in all likelihood allowed to carry on their deadly work.

(...)

Faced with this grave and gathering threat, John F. Kerry advocates appeasement. He recommends making a deal for Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program in return for U.S. concessions, such as helping it to build "civilian" nuclear reactors. There's no reason to think this approach would work any better than a similar accord with North Korea in 1994. Iran has already violated a 2003 agreement with Britain, France and Germany to curtail its nuclear weapons development. The mullahs are hellbent on going nuclear; they are not going to give up what one Iranian newspaper editor calls "the rare pearl for which we have labored greatly."



http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot9sep09,1,5220276.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[Iranian Monitor]

Zionist Propaganda 9-9-04 (Max Boot, Olin Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations)

Max Boot does have a fellowship at the Council of Foreign Relations, but his position on Iran policy is the opposite of the one advocated by that organization. The Council on Foreign Relations, which is traditionally a moderate (center-right) organization and part of the "realist" school of thought on foreign affairs, has advocated the very policy Max Boot derides. In other words, "engagement" with Iran. More on that later.

But who is Max Boot anyway? To just mention he has a fellowship with the Council on Foreign Relations is misleading. More tellingly, he is also a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard -- the journal of choice for the motly crew of staunchly "pro-Israeli" thinkers referred to as "neoconservatives".

Or, to put the answer to the question "Who is Max Boot?" differently: Max Boot is a neocon -- certainly, a neocon wannabe! And as Max Boot admits, support for Israel is a "key tenet of neocon thinking".


What the Heck Is a 'Neocon'?
By Max Boot
December 30, 2002
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002840


Moving along...

Since you like to misuse the pedigree of the Council on Foreign Relations, and cite opinion pieces from the LA Times, I suggest you actually cite the real position of both of these organizations.

The LA Times position was outlined in an editorial only a couple days ago, as follows:


Los Angeles Times
September 7, 2004
EDITORIAL
"An Opening to Iran"

(...)The only reasonable path is to attempt to persuade Tehran's leaders that they would be better off scrapping atomic weapons in exchange for expanded trade and regional stability. (...)

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-iran7sep07,1,4648816.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

As for the Council on Foreign Relations, and their position on Iran, here is their press release which tries to summarize their report advocating engagement with Iran:


Lack of Engagement with Iran Threatens U.S. National Interests in Critical Region of the World, Concludes Council-Sponsored Task Force

July 19, 2004 - The lack of sustained engagement with Iran harms American interests, and direct dialogue with Tehran on specific areas of mutual concern should be pursued, concludes a Council-sponsored Independent Task Force, Iran: Time for a New Approach. (...)
http://www.cfr.org/pub7195/press_release/lack_of_engagement_with_iran_threatens_us_national_interests_in_critical_region_of_the_world_concludes_councilsponsored_task_force.php

I think you are way out of your league when you start discussing mainstream US groups and their positions, unless they happen to mouthpieces for Aipac or part of the neocon cabal. Even though you appear "left/liberal" on economic and social policy issues, nonetheless you shouldn't be ashamed of joining the neocons: many of them started just like you, as "pro-Israeli" liberals who eventually decided that their "pro-Israeli" sympathies outweighed their leftist and liberal antecedents. Of course, some of them claim that what really happened was that their liberalism got "mugged by reality". Too bad they decided to trade some of the discredited ideas they held about politics and economics, with rather disingeneous and discredit opinions on foreign policy!

[Chicago1871]

Is Kerry trying to lose this campaign? What dumbass campaign advisor authorized this move?

[BenReilly]

Since you like to misuse the pedigree of the Council on Foreign Relations


It was an accurate statement, even if you do not approve.


I think you are way out of your league when you start discussing mainstream US groups and their positions,

I'm mostly familiar with the Jewish dominated ones, the other 10% (like the Council on Foreign Relations) are a little alien to me.


Even though you appear "left/liberal" on economic and social policy issues, nonetheless you shouldn't be ashamed of joining the neocons: many of them started just like you, as "pro-Israeli" liberals who eventually decided that their "pro-Israeli" sympathies outweighed their leftist and liberal antecedents.

Another dual loyalty conundrum.

[bojendyk]

If they would have nominated a guy like Joe Biden I might even have voted for him. I always found him to be an extremely bright guy don't you agree?

If they would have nominated a guy like Joe Biden I might even have voted for him. I always found him to be an extremely bright guy don't you agree?

<rimshot>