Progress on Iran diplomacy?
By on Jun 17th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Progress on Iran diplomacy?
“Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Friday that his country was seriously considering an international proposal to resolve the dispute over its uranium enrichment program.” In “vague but conciliatory remarks,” Ahmadinejad called the U.S.-backed package of incentives a “step forward.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Very revealing interview with Tim Russert on Iraq and 9/11.
June 17th, 2006 at 4:48 pmWhat happens at the end???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6ucTsF6ldQ
I think we need to just give Iran uranium…lots and lots of depleted uranium. Diplomacy is sure to fail, and we need to attack now. Call it pre-emptive pre-emption. We need to fight them there, before they can attack us here. The same goes for most of the countries east of Germany, for that matter.
June 17th, 2006 at 4:58 pmmeanwhile, the drums of war are still being beaten… my personal opinion is that the veneer of diplomacy on the u.s. side is extremely thin and would not have been there at all had it not been for ahmadinejad making the first move… the pressure on bushco from europe, russia, and china had to have been huge and refusing to even talk would have been the last nail in the coffin for bushco with its erstwhile “allies” in the gwot…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
June 17th, 2006 at 5:00 pmp.s. great, herman… glad to see you’re still taking those testosterone supplements…
June 17th, 2006 at 5:01 pmDoes anyone here actually believe the Bushapoids can even afford to attack Iran? The ballgame is over and there is nothing that gang of thieves and murderers in the White House can do about it.
June 17th, 2006 at 5:11 pmhttp://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pentagon_confirms_Iranian_directorate_as_intelligence_0615.html
June 17th, 2006 at 5:16 pmgood.
June 17th, 2006 at 5:18 pmNuke-Free Zone
by Gordon Prather
The Neo-Crazies, in cahoots with the Anti-Nuclear-Whatever crazies, have managed to get Western politicians from across the political spectrum to view-with-alarm the Iranian nuclear weapons “threat.” Of course, as those politicians know, there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is now a nuke threat.
Know, because until March of this year Iran had voluntarily cooperated with Director-General ElBaradei and staff of the International Atomic Energy Agency as if an unratified Additional Protocol to their 1974 Safeguards Agreement was actually in force.
After more than three years, comprising 1700 man-days of inspections, the IAEA found “no indication” there were “undeclared source or special nuclear materials” in Iran. Furthermore, they found no indication that any declared source or special nuclear materials had been diverted to military purpose.
As for Iran comprising a nuke threat, the IAEA inspectors didn’t even find trace amounts of almost pure Uranium-235, much less the hundreds of pounds that would be needed to make a few first-generation nukes.
But the almost certain knowledge that there is no Iranian nuke threat doesn’t faze Western politicians.
Nor does the knowledge appear to faze them that if George Bush nukes Iran – as he and his henchmen keep threatening – we are all going to be in a heap of trouble.
What’s more puzzling is why the Western media elite do not challenge the oft repeated assertions by Western politicians and government officials that we have “no choice” but to remove the Iranian nuke “threat,” by force “if necessary.”
The Western media elite also repeatedly report that Iran’s alleged nuke program – if not actually on the agenda – is a hotly debated sideline topic at recent meetings of the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the China-Arab Cooperation Forum, the Non-Aligned Movement’s Ministerial Meeting, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the upcoming meeting of the Group of Eight.
But it’s not hotly debated.
On the contrary, Iran is acknowledged to be a principal defender of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear weapons and a principal advocate of a “nuclear-weapon-free” zone in the Middle East. Most notably at the 2005 NPT Review Conference (made disastrous by Condi’s quasi-boycott), but also at the “high-level event” (savaged by Bonkers Bolton) that immediately preceded last year’s 60th Session of the UN General Assembly, by the address of their new President before the General Assembly last September, and in addresses made by high-level Iranian officials at quarterly meetings of the IAEA Board of Governors.
In fact, virtually all meetings of all these organizations end with expressions of strong support for the NPT (and implicitly, Iran) and its “three pillars” – [1] non-proliferation, [2] disarmament and [3] the inalienable right to peacefully use nuclear technology.
Note that for the anti-nuclear-whatever crazies, that third NPT pillar is bad.
And for the neo-crazies, that second NPT pillar is really bad.
Nevertheless, soon after taking office, with the Cold War won, President Clinton began taking positive steps towards compliance with the NPT disarmament provisions.
By 1995 Clinton had gotten all signatories to agree to extend the life of NPT – originally requiring renewal every five years – indefinitely.
The first Review Conference to assess NPT effectiveness – held in 2000 – was considered by the disarmament crowd to be a great success, in spite of the fact that in 1998 both India and Pakistan (neither country an NPT signatory) had detonated their homegrown nukes for the first time.
Why a success?
Because Clinton committed the United States to “an unequivocal undertaking” to accomplish “the total elimination” of our nuke arsenal, as well as to “a reaffirmation” of the commitment in UN Security Council resolution 984 to “give security assurances against the use of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon States that are Parties” to the NPT.
Wait a minute.
Haven’t the Iranians been insisting that Bush resume taking those steps towards early nuke disarmament agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference?
Haven’t the Iranians been insisting that Bush reaffirm the commitment made as a signatory to the NPT to “cooperate” in contributing to the “applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,” especially “in non-nuclear-weapons States”?
Finally, haven’t the Iranians been asking the Brits-French-Germans to hold Bush to the US commitment to never nuke a non-nuclear-weapons State?
Well, maybe there’s hope. The Russians and Chinese – who already have oil, gas and nuclear energy co-development projects in Iran – will join the Brits-French-Germans in the next round of negotiations. Maybe they can explain to Dubya (or McCain or Hillary) why nuking those CO-development projects wouldn’t be a good idea.
June 17th, 2006 at 5:22 pm“America says that Iran would pose a threat if it gains access to nuclear weapons because it is not a democratic country, and because its government is fundamentalist, and this could pose a danger to the whole region, but America has forgotten that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and Pakistani Muslims are much more fundamentalist than Iranian Muslims, and Pervez Musharraf did not come to power as a result of an election. The only difference between Iran and Pakistan is that Pakistan is friendly towards America and obeys America, while Iran does not obey America. This double standard is something that the Iranian people cannot understand.”
June 17th, 2006 at 5:33 pmBecause of his chronic unpopularity, Bush is already in a complicated political predicament. Bush is facing the loss of his American political hegemony in the midterm elections this November. If Bush loses even one house of Congress, he will face the immediate threat of official probes led by partisan special prosecutors and a rising demand for his impeachment. In his game of poker with Ahmadinejad, Bush has nothing to lose by upping the ante and wrapping himself in the American flag while dropping a massive bombardment onto the primary vortex of his Axis of Evil, Iran.
June 17th, 2006 at 5:36 pmVery good post Tobey, will these bunch of waramongers get it, probably not, but good posts anyway……..Blessings
June 17th, 2006 at 5:43 pmSeems old Herman Hayes and the other clones believe it’s a foregone conclusion that, because we got the fanciest weapons and are the only super-power left, that we can just kick the bejaysus out of anyone we want to with no consequences.
Old Herman’s not figuring he’s personally going to have to do any ass kicking, but he can watch it on TV and root for the home team. Without any danger to himself.
Herman might be right. But Herman also might be dead wrong, along with a lot of other Americans, many of whom actually have functioning brains and would rather not take the chance.
I wonder and wonder and wonder about some of the viewpoints I read here. All I can figure is half the population of the US spent their childhoods with their heads in paper sacks sniffing glue.
June 17th, 2006 at 5:51 pmFunny – in another thread, there was this comment that basically asked what we’d do if China were to invade Israel because they had WMDs (and they do). I don’t blame Iran for wanting to advance their technology – it’s ironic that many can’t understand the position that Iran is in. They may be perceived as a nutball country (esp by FNS’s “middle amerika”), but they do have a country next to them with WMDs, so, if you were the leader, wouldn’t you puff out your chest just a bit? (for the RW’ingers – think about it).
I am truely bothered by any “twitchy” country – but at the same time, I take the time to try and see the other side – and that is what diplomacy is all about – something the current administration is severely lacking. Sure, you can get out your big stick and get some other nations to “listen” (Libya) – but for others it isn’t going to work. Hell, “we” keep trying to “cut off” Cuba with nasty sanctions, but has that worked? Nope.
Put the guns down and try talking – but that’s something that a “cedar-chopping bring ‘em on cowboy mentality” president won’t do. (and you see it in the lack of response to Iran’s subtle attempts to “talk”. ’nuff said.
June 17th, 2006 at 6:47 pmComment by MrTimPA
June 17th, 2006 at 9:35 pmI hate when my breakfast flakes get soaked. And do you see me bombing Kellog´s?
Hey everybody,
I heard on one of the other blogs that Karl Rove was stirring up shit on Progressive blogs under the name Seixon. Let’s give Karl Rove a warm welcome when he comments later on this blog.
June 17th, 2006 at 10:20 pmI have to agree with #13 – the talking thing is good. Getting some revisions to the NPT would be a good thing, too. Central to this particular discussion, though, is the idea of creating an international fuel bank that guarantees access to all countries that are NPT signatories … they sell them the fuel and then take it back when done. Encouraging next-gen PBMRs is a good start, as is pushing the development of capsule-based assemblies (e.g. fast neutron reactors that burn 95% of the fuel). That way, no chance to profilerate, as no one has the excuse to create their own nuclear fuel cycle. Then, if they do retain fuel, it’s a clear sign that they are building weapons. More of a long-term goal, but. Additionally, to provide a closed loop – we need to figure out a long term disposal method for nuclear fuel. One global repository makes a hell of a lot of sense. Abyssal disposal does as well — people have to remember that abysses are a) greater than 6 miles deep and b) are being sucked down into the mantle via subduction. Anything dropped therein is *not* coming back out, particularly not when coated in deep pressure caskets. The depth is such that the material is staying put, and I can assure you that at 5-6 miles deep, it’s safer than anywhere else — no question of what happens to it in 5 or 10k years — it’ll be sucked into the mantle by that point, which consists of many radioactive elements anyway. It’s more stable than long-term geologic disposal.
June 17th, 2006 at 11:10 pmBush has already made plans to attack Iran before the November elections, so any diplomacy is just for show at the moment! Karl Rove believes it is the only way to keep the House and Senate in GOP hands, which means a staged terror attack may be needed again?! Democrats better wise up and be prepared to counter the November surprise!
June 17th, 2006 at 11:17 pmI mean October surprise actually!
June 17th, 2006 at 11:19 pm#16 – AScholar: While I’m not sure I agree with your disposal method (but, it could work), I like the plan – and that’s the point – this whole nuke thing could be settled in a peaceful manner… – but, we have a cowboy (not!) in the WH.
June 17th, 2006 at 11:36 pmWho was it who said that the Bush Crime Family offers you a stick or a carrot, and then if you take the apparent incentive, STAB YOU WITH A SHARPENED CARROT!
Pretty soon America will find out that Ahmadinejad spells his last name H.U.S.S.E.I.N.
June 18th, 2006 at 12:55 am“Additionally, to provide a closed loop – we need to figure out a long term disposal method for nuclear fuel.”
EASY! Weaponize it and fire tens of thousands of tons of it at innocent people to poison the land for thousands of years.
“One global repository makes a hell of a lot of sense.”
While the OBVIOUS AND PERMANENT RISK OF COOLING PONDS TO THE PUBLIC will continue FOREVER.
Let’s have some more poison sitting around waiting for terrorist attacks. That is real good pre-Nine-eleven thinking, AScholar.
Btw, what does the A stand for?
June 18th, 2006 at 1:02 amIt’s so funny to watch some posters bury their heads in the sand. Do you really trust the rulers of the Iranian regime to play nice? The fact that they won’t let the inspectors in AND they have said they want a nuke to remove the first democracy in that region from the face of the earth AND they are starting up the weapon production centrifuges is a good enough reason to give them three quick strikes with diplomacy and then take them out. I don’t think we can afford to give them sixteen or seventeen U.N. resolutions. They have the resources and the ability to progress down this path much faster than Hussein did. You don’t let a growling dog bite you before you hit it in the head with a big pipe to teach it a lesson. What we need is the CIA to be allowed to secretly take out leaders of extremist governments again like they used to do. Some of the posters here need to refocus their anger away from the White House and at the people that truly mean us and the free world real harm. I can’t help it; if it’s going to happen, I would rather their innocent civilians die not ours. Does that make me wrong?
June 18th, 2006 at 1:58 am#23 – Piper, yes, I think you are wrong on many levels, or at least incomplete in your analysis of this situation, but that doesn’t really matter now, you’ll continue to believe what you want to believe anyway.
June 18th, 2006 at 2:23 amPeace
And we will in turn ask you:
Do you really trust the rulers of the Bush regime to play nice?
June 18th, 2006 at 2:32 amComment by Piper
In fact, Hussein was so slow to build WMD´s that US has not found them. Wake up. Remember that your government is made of cowards and they were pretty sure that Iraq did not have WMD´s, that is why they attacked. Have US made a movilization towards North Korea…dont think so, or India or Pakistan? Because they not only have WMD´s, they brag about it! So, try to sleep easily. In fact, out there, nobody hates you. They just hate your government.
Comment by Piper
If you support that kind of actions, then you would be OK if your family and you are secretely taken from your country, and then put you in a dark, cold prison under Shangai´s market without being tryed or given the opportunity to defend yourself. Maybe you pose a threat to “evil doers” and they will be entitled to do that just as you suggest.
Comment by Piper
Free world? What is your definition of free world? Why are not canadians being harrased by terrorists if they hate the so called free world? Or Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Portugal, etc…? Those words are a load of crap that you have taken as a dogma from your corrupted media. Free world where a president is supported by 29% of the population? Where civil rights are being reduced into nothingness thanks to your huge fear of almost everything? Where a dead soldier´s mother can not speak to the president in the House of the People and the whole world condemns the situation of the detainees in Gitmo?
That only makes you a big pile of s**t. You deserve to live in permanent state of fear. Good.
June 18th, 2006 at 4:21 amGuess the real name of Herman Hayes is Herman Goering!
June 18th, 2006 at 4:33 am#25 Excellent job in counter pointing PIPER. If you would have left out the “big pile”line it would have been the most insightful retort I’ve read on TP. A point without expletives is always better read. Sorry if I sound “preachy.” I really enjoyed your post.
June 18th, 2006 at 6:18 amFrank Rich: “(A)s long as the Democrats keep repeating their own mistakes, they will lose to the party whose mistakes are, if nothing else, packaged as one heckuva show. It’s better to have the courage of bad convictions than no courage or convictions at all.â€
June 18th, 2006 at 6:29 am[...] Progress on Iran diplomacy? Think Progress, DC - 19 hours ago Iran s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Friday that his country was seriously considering an international proposal to resolve the dispute over its [...]
June 18th, 2006 at 11:55 amGermany urges nuclear powers to disarm
BERLIN (Reuters) – Germany called on Saturday for the world’s leading nuclear powers to reduce their atomic arsenals as they press Iran to suspend its nuclear program.
Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier urged the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France — to make concessions in the context of the Iran dispute, Spiegel magazine reported.
“I am in fact of the view that, beyond the current Iran conflict, we must review the worldwide nuclear armament status,” Steinmeier told Spiegel.
“We are in favor of effectively applying the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It contains the promise of the nuclear powers disarming, and we should press them to do that,” he said.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a 1970 global pact against the spread of atomic weapons which is policed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
NO WONDER BUSH IS UNDERMIMING The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by Breaking the rules and selling to india who never signed up to the NPT….. He wants to break the treaty apart so there is no reduction is any arms worldwide as well as other reasons —wanker he is
June 18th, 2006 at 11:56 amVictoria Silvstedt
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
March 19th, 2008 at 1:25 amAuto Loan
If your child seeks for a Boston , It is hassle-free to get an} auto loan in
April 12th, 2008 at 11:37 am