An excerpt from a recent article. No Carrots, All Stick In speeches last week in Europe, Iyad Allawi singled out Iran among Iraq's neighbors for being uncooperative. This was not accidental. He was echoing his master's voice, that of the man who installed him as the Interim Executive Prime Minister -- George W. Bush. Nor is it accidental that the Bush administration has refused point blank to endorse the package that the European Union trio -- France, Germany, and the United Kingdom -- has offered Iran as a way to begin to settle the nuclear issue, even though the offer was backed by the European Union summit in Brussels on Friday. "A full and sustained suspension of all [uranium] enrichment and reprocessing activities, on a voluntary basis, would open the door for talks on long-term cooperation offering mutual benefits," said the EU communiqué. It further pledged resumption of suspended negotiations on a Trade and Cooperation Agreement between Iran and the EU. Earlier, when shown the EU trio package, John Bolton, the neoconservative American undersecretary for arms control and international security at the State Department, said, "I don't do carrots." In contrast, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, delivering his weekly sermon on Friday in Tehran, repeated his opposition to "the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons," which, he asserted, are forbidden under Islam. "They [the Americans and Israelis] accuse us of pursuing nuclear weapons program," he added. "I am telling them as I have said before that we are not even thinking about nuclear weapons." http://www.zmag.org/content/showart...=15&ItemID=6595
Nukes are forbidden under Islam. And if that isn't proof enough, Supreme Leader said they are not even thinking about nukes. Well that settles it. Interesting how articles now refer to anyone in the GOP as a neoconservative. Sounds so facist! Great line though: "We don't do carrots."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...asia_afp/iran_nuclear_iaea_china_041106223605 http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=3&article_id=9952 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...10&u=/ap/20041108/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear You should note that UK is directly involved in the negotiation. I think it's clear that both EU and China are acting wisely to prevent any new neocon madness. Meanwhile we and China could make some profitable economic exchange with Iran. I hope that part of the EU plan is Iran using euros to sell its oil.
You're right the US is the only one that's not interested in making money for now. One last attempt at the appearance of prosperity in the next couple of months and down we go people. Iran is not too far away. And 2008 is just around the corner. After the 2008 election, the US will pay attention to the Dollar again and that's a promise.
The regime in Iran is cowing to pressures that actually increase the chances of a military confrontation down the line! Last year, when Iran signed the additional protocal, it gave the US/Israel better intelligence as to potential targets of attacks, thereby removing one of the major constraints that existed against such moves . By slowing down its nuclear program and suspending its enrichment activities, Iran is further showing that it won't have a strong enough deterrent capability if the going gets ugly. All the regime in Iran is banking on is for the Europeans to be able to avert any American action, while the Europeans are making demands that are increasingly difficult for Iran to swallow -- all to appease the Americans. In this equation, Iran's military establishment is losing its patience and beginning to signal that it won't be lying down quietly while the regime trades away Iran's rights and makes concessions that in the long run actually make attacks on Iran more likely. In that context, recently the revolutionary guards gave Hezbollah the green light to launch an Iranian made surveillance UAV (drone) into Israel territory.
Actually I think that if Iran does not cooperate we need to do actions... first would be sanctions. If they do, there is no problem. the Un needs to show some teeth, but at Sudan for example China and Russia are blocking everything and the European leaders don't seem to have the balls to do anything about it... Ruanda 2! Terrbile... Same thing with Checheny or however that is spelled in english...
You guys have it all wrong. Has it ever occured to you that they have a RIGHT to nuclear technology? That the only reason the US is against Iran in the first place is because Israel is, yet has no teeth in the UN? Its hard to prosecute a nation for doing what they have a rigth to do, even under the NPT guidelines. Its ridiculous to ask them to stop what they are doing because we dont trust what they are doing. So far they have done all that has been asked except for stopping the whole program which isnt required by international law, and they dont see why they have to be bullied into accepting it. We cannot attack Iran. they are strategically located near the majority of our army, and they are no IRAQ. Retaliation would be deadly by both pentagon and the Israeli calculations. UN Sanctions are the only way to go, though it seems unlikely. This has been going on for over a year.
Actually, Iran with WMD is imo much more dangerous than Iraq... but hey, who cares... I think the Eu should start with abolishing nuclear weapons... best for everyone... Russia and USA have some, they'll help us if we need...
One of the founders of the conservative movement, William F. Buckley, has written an opinion piece that tries to draw lessons from recent war games dealing with Iran and covered in full in the Atlantic Monthly.
Yes, America's conflict with Iran has always been about Israel. In 1953, it was about Israel. In 1979, again Israel.
And NK. Though Iran has allies in the EU and China, so it makes it somewhat more difficult for the US to have a unilateral force and say like it usually does.
WTF? Iran? EU? Allies? we are just trying to avoid a nuclear war in the middle east... btw that rumour that the French and German 'no' was because inner politics (the rulers wanted to stay in power, not like in Spain) and no financial connections... Don't you think that the French could have made a much better profit in supporting the US?
No. Had they averted the war, they had much invested in Iraq. And now they have much in Iran too. Lots of trade and exports etc. There will not be a nuclear war in the middle east, just having a nuclear weapon will create an immunity for a coutry not to get invaded or attacked, which i believe is what the Mullahs are trying to do. And the minor fact that they have every right to the technology itself.
You do realize that Iran has had sanctions placed on it by the US since 1979 (extended another year this very week)? If anything, those unilateral sanctions have strengthened Iran and are, for all practical purposes, insignificant.
This White House has adopted a regime change policy for Iran since 2003. Would it actually follow through with it? The cabinet reshuffle could be a telling sign. Neocon Wolfowitz gets more power than he already has? Rumsfeld stays and for how long? Powell stays or not? Bush seems to be satisfied with having avenged for his father, taking down Saddam. He might have had enough fun with this war president gig. But the problem is, once war is started, it doesn't stop until it runs its course fully. How much could Bush keep the neocons under control or should I say how much the neocons could continue to maneuver Bush will determine if we'll take on Iran militarily. That's, if all goes well with Iraq, at least in appearance.
dreamer, Although I agree with your overall concerns regarding the policy being advocated by the neocons, I hope you won't mind me going over your message to bring out the areas that I disagree. I don't think that is accurate. Rather, in 2003, the neocons in the Bush adminstration pushed hard for a policy of "regime change" in Iran, while others in the State Department and the CIA disagreed. At the end, the Bush administration failed to reach any agreement on the issue. Some arms of the US government acted more in line with a "regime change" policy, while others publicly stated that was not US policy on Iran. Even today, Colin Powell has again denied that the US has a "regime change" policy with regard to Iran. See http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041113/pl_afp/us_iran_powell_041113204914 I agree that it will be telling to follow the cabinet reshuffles for signs of which faction in the government is gaining the upperhand. This is a semantic difference, but basically the reason that is important is to see what policy the US finally settles on with regard to Iran? Not whether the US will "follow through" a policy it has really not yet adopted. Although some military strikes against certain Iranian targets and installations are actively considered, even the chances of those type of strikes are somewhat remote as there is no clear idea on how the situation can be contained from getting into a full scale war. A full scale war with Iran, however, is something all sides (even the neocons) would like to avoid as it would be quite costly for the US in many ways. As such, it is not accurate to think that even the neocons are advocating "regime change" through an invasion of Iran! Rather, the instruments for "regime change" that the neocons favor are the following: international and diplomatic isolation of Iran; funding of all sorts of regime opponents, including monarchists, MEK, domestic opposition groups, as well as even fueling separatist groups in the country's periphery. The neocons have argued that increased international and diplomatic isolation, along with encouranging "regime change" while funding opposition and other groups, will lead the regime to fall from within. At most, they have argued, the US would need to launch some aerial strikes against Iranian military and political targets. As an aside, I believe the neocon policy positions on Iran threaten Iran's interests regardless of how they might affect interests elsewhere. Those policies, if ever adopted and implemented, will very likely lead to one of two alternatives: (1) either Iran becoming less open, even less democratic, more dictatorial, and more impoverished; or, alternatively, (2) Iran eventually falling into a civil war, with various groups fighting to gain power in the center of the country while others try to separate from that center altogether. Neither of those choices are ones I find inviting or in Iran's interests.
Not at all. An open-minded discussion is all I ask for. It'd be a shame to live in a great democracy such as America yet could not speak one's mind. All that pretentious political correctness is not for me. I read through the article you linked to. Good sign that Powell is using strong words like that today. He's the only credible dove that could counter the hawkish neocons somewhat. Good sign for two reasons, 1) Maybe he's staying after all. He's been expected to step down in Bush's second term for some time. Rumors have it that he has been excluded from the inner circle of decision making because of his less hawkish stance on Iraq. 2) He has learned a lesson in how to deal with the neocons and is taking initiative early. Speaking out forcefully against "regime change in Iran" may be his way of preemptive strike, before the balance till further in favor of the hawks such as Wolfowitz which could come with the new round of major military success in Iraq. Even before the election votes were tallied up, the media had again played up the possibility of tougher stance on Iran. The overall policy balance in this administration is still in favor of the neocons' hawkish stance, since they've been given a free hand in advocating war, first in Afghanistan and then Iraq. A quote from your article, "Hawks within President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s administration have advocated for regime change in Tehran -- through covert operations or force if needed, Newsweek magazine reported in September." While it's encouraging to see Powell speak out today, is he simply posturing to gain policy leverage or is this a sign that Powell is back in Bush's favor and Bush is using Powell to signal he's had enough fun with war is yet to be seen IMHO.
Can someone provide a lineup of who is a member of the "two" teams of conservatives? Namely the neocons and the, well, the non-neocons don't have a cool facist-sounding name yet--how about the stealtcons?! And the neocon wing wants to conquor the world, right? Not familiar with the platform of the neocons. Are you guys talking about the 50's-60's anti-commie neocons? Or the media label from the 80's that got attached to the GOP after Reagan was elected? There's ANOTHER neocon now?
Before I give my answer to this question, I will give you the answer given by the Christian Science Monitor. It is a rather bland way to answer the question, without much editorial spin. My answer has a different emphasis. When referring to neocons, the group I refer to -- and the one that has risen in power and influence in recent years -- are ones also referred to as "Likudniks". While couching their ideology in terms of US interests and in favor of a US imperium, and sounding inviting slogans speaking to a supposed zeal to spread "democracies" in the Middle East, their real passion is Israel. Specifically, for most at least, the Likud's vision of Greater Israel. And their real agenda is to make the Middle East pacified for that vision. Their defection to the Republican party coincided with two things: first, the "left's" growing sympathy with Palestinian causes following the 1967 war; second, the rise of Likud in Israeli politics. These twin events led many of these folks to jump from being "left/liberal" activitsts to "right/extreme right" so-called intellectuals! Today, aligned with former cold war warriors looking for a new enemy to replace to old Soviet Union, including all the institutions, industries and establishments with a vested interest in this regard, as well the curious band of evangelical Christians who find in their Bible prophesies a strong -- even if temporary -- devotion to Israel, and on occasion finding support across the political divide in traditional (more mainstream) Jewish organizations, the neocons have enormous influence on both the political discourse in this country as well as over the policies of the Bush administration.
The US doesn't have Iran's best interests at heart, well ******** my ass. Does Iran have the right to develop nuclear technology; maybe but they're basicaly just copying what American and Russian scientists did before them. So "they're stealing our ideas" is the only way I can think that they should be denied the technology without starting from the beggining and not using our stolen tech, not a very good argument. I don't think it's in the world's interest for any country to have nukes and even less so ICBM's. A conflict with Iran today would not be go super well. Unless Iran has tactical nukes they can't win but it would still suck and there would have to be a draft. The thing I worry about is that the US's inteligence is so crappy that as time goes on Iran will become a bigger threat and a President will have to decide wether to let Iran have Nukes and be close to untouchable or to destroy their program which because our intelligence sucks will require a huge attack.