According to Reuters : “Iran says it is losing patience with U.N. inspections of its nuclear programme…” Amazingly, so am I. Of course, that’s where my agreement stops, as the sentence continues… “and has announced that its agreement with the Europeans to halt uranium enrichment will soon come to an end.”
The article continues later: Mousavian [the Iranian delegation leader] rejected the possibility that Iran would abandon the nuclear fuel cycle and said Tehran had done more than enough to assure the world its atomic intentions were peaceful.
“Iran has taken all the necessary confidence building measures,” he said, adding that enrichment is the “legitimate right of all (IAEA) members”.
Mousavian said Iran was running out of patience with the U.N. inspection process and expected the agency to complete its investigation by the time the board met again in November.
While we all enjoy ourselves with the almost-comic spectacle of the implosion of Dan Rather, the world goes on with the most ominous implications. I would like to think that a serious explication of our Iran policy (though highly unlikely) would be useful during the political campaign. But I wonder. Behind the scenes action may be more valuable, at least until after the election. We are in a deadly game to stop the first Islamic bomb and Europe is clearly at best an ambivalent ally. The Euros often sound more like David Broder who, in his Sunday WaPo op-ed, seemed more concerned with Israel’s nuclear capability than with Iran’s. No comment.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
8 Comments
1. chuck:The administration is on record as saying that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. Precisely what this means in practice, I am not sure, but I don’t think it means standing by and wringing hands. Russia is more important than Europe in this, and I note that ties with Russia are being carefully cultivated after Beslan. The Euros are also being nudged into line. I think the diplomatic ground work for action is well underway and will bear fruit in the near term. One more reason to vote for Bush, as the foreign policy of a new administration would take at least a year to settle in, IMHO.
Sep 13, 2004 - 7:21 am 2. scaramouoche:To entrust our lives to the U.N. ferrets, EU appeasers and Iranian jihadis would be more than foolhardy; it would be suicidal.
Sep 13, 2004 - 7:48 am 3. Clio:Roger,
Please don’t claim not to follow Broder’s logic on Israeli nukes. After all, they’ve had them for decades, in which time they’ve invaded several Arab neighbors, laying claim to their oilfields, raping and pillaging–oh, sorry, that was Saddam’s Iraq wasn’t it? Nevermind.
Sep 13, 2004 - 7:49 am 4. MaDr:Correction
There already is an “Islamic” bomb – Pakistan.
This will be the first “Islamist’s” bomb.
Sep 13, 2004 - 8:34 am 5. Tom Grey:Right MaDr, and the world is living with it. Not so greatly, but the Pakis and Indians seem to have their own version of MAD to stop excessive zeal.
Iran needs regime change. I wonder if a re-elected Bush could get some significant Russian troops for occupation support of Iran, around January?
I wonder what the foreign language learning status is for the US Army, for Persian (Farsi)?
I want Bush re-elected, and regime change in Iran — right after an election in Iraq; even if it’s not every town in Iraq.
Sep 13, 2004 - 9:09 am 6. thibaud:The EUros are of little help to us with Iran. In fact, they’re more useful to the mullahs, who can play them off against us.
If we are to successfully contain Iran, and prevent WMD from seeping out of that candy store to Iran’s north that is the former Soviet Union, then of course the crucial nation for us is Russia.
It’s helpful to think of Russia as like Pakistan in this sense: a neighboring, very powerful, nuclear-armed state in which large elements of the security forces are deeply hostile to the US and over which the putative strongman barely rules. As with Musharraf, we need a full-court diplomatic press to get Putin on our side, immediately.
Spend whatever it takes– $10 billion to wean Russia’s nuclear industry off of Iran? No problem. Joint military exercises in Pankisi Gorge? Let’s talk about it. Increasing tenfold the nuke nonproliferation program budget for Russian scientists? Done.
The other crucial nation is of course India, which has long had decent relations with Iran. Again, bribery, bullying, patient but diligent diplomacy, but get the job done. Do what it takes to get India and Russia on your side.
Who will be better at this, Bush or Kerry? It’s pretty obvious that Bush’s people, when Bush wants them to, are remarkably adept at diplomacy in that region. Note how Armitage and Powell transformed the US relationship with India-Pakistan into a real honest broker relationship that brings very tangible benefits to us, the Indians and Musharraf both. They can do so again with Putin if they set their minds to it.
As to Kerry, he and his Europhiles (Daalder, Holbrooke et al) seem to me to be too far behind the curve– they still think Europe’s the center of the universe. They’d probably waste countless cycles with Straw and the other EU jokers, as they did over Bosnia, instead of bypassing these clowns and going East, toward the crucial nations that truly can help or harm us.
Asian Century now, Americans. Russia, India, China
(and of course Turkey, Israel and Japan) are the crucial nations for us, not France and Germany.
Sep 13, 2004 - 3:40 pm 7. ricpic:Israel will not let Iran go nuclear. This is life and death for them. No matter how hardened the facilities, no matter how many sorties are recquired, no matter how many pilots and planes they lose doing it, if we don’t take out the reactor(s) Israel will.
There is a tip point at which Israel will go and it is completely independent of the repurcussions. When the Mosad determines that Iran is on the verge — Israel will launch.
Sep 13, 2004 - 5:37 pm 8. johnnyMC:Heres my my take on it:
What the Kerry/Edwards strategy says
Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons. A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region. While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry’s proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran’s nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action.
What it really means
Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons. A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and Israel in the region. While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has been moving ahead with its nuclear weapons program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the concessions to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. JOhnKErry’s proposal would not call their bluff by disorganizing a group of states to give Iran the fuel they need for weapons purposes and take back the spent fuel so they can divert it later to build weapons. If Iran accepts this offer their true motivations will be unclear. Under the current circumstances, JOhnKErry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) weak efforts to discern the full extent of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, while pushing Iran to agree to a unverifiable and temporary suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. When this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for inaction.
Sep 13, 2004 - 11:07 pm