August 16, 2005
Euro Success in Iran (fooled again)
Those who criticize us and claim that we should have only worked with the IAEA do not know that at that stage - that is, in August 2003 - we needed another year to complete the Esfahan (UCF) project, so it could be operational.
The regime adopted a twofold policy here: It worked intensively with the IAEA, and it also conducted negotiations on international and political levels. The IAEA gave us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities. But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan. more from the Iranians
Posted by Jack at August 16, 2005 11:19 PMJack,
Your point?
Why is it ok for Israel to maintain a nuclear arsenal, and refuse any inspections whatsoever of its facilities?
The answer is that Israel needs nuclear weapons as a deterrence. We do not object to Israel’s defiance of the international community because we consider Israel a good friend & ally. Although Israel is a Jewish state, and although it is not a democracy, we accept this in light of what happened during the Holocaust.
Why do we consider a nuclear Iran unacceptable?
Personally, I don’t doubt for a moment that the Iranians will develop a nuclear arsenal. An unintended consequence of the US invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq is that Iran has surely observed it has been identified as part of an ‘axis of evil,’ but that countries which have unfriendly relations with the US yet possess nuclear weapons do not get invaded.
Nuclear weapons provide a deterrent for Israel, and they would also provide a deterrent for Iran.
Why not encourage friendly relations with Iran? They are just as capable of evolving democracy as any other nation; and if we find a Jewish state acceptable, why would we find an Islamic state acceptable?
Unfortunately, the disastrous policies of the Bush administration have taken us a long way down a road towards confrontation, and adversarial relationships with countries such as Iran.
In the case of Iran, a history which includes a CIA overthrow of a democratic government in Iran in 1954, followed by a US-backed dictator in the Shah, and a brutally repressive secret police force, SAVAK, makes establishing better relations difficult.
Yet Iran has not invaded its neighbors. In fact, with the exception of Israel (and for backing Israel, the US), Iran generally enjoys appropriate relationships with other countries.
Why not start establishing a better relationship now? Israel can certainly protect itself, and its security is not a matter of US national security. Establishing a better relationship with a nuclear Iran won’t be easy, of course; establishing a positive relationship with Iran will take an incredible amount of patience.
Why not think positively, and act positively, and forget the saber rattling?
Posted by: phx8 at August 17, 2005 12:22 AMIs this supposed to be news. Look, if the US is going to lead the way in proliferating nuclear technology, why on earth would anyone reasonably expect a country like Iran not to follow the path of Pakistan, a dictator we now support and have given 100’s of millions of dollars to.
In light of the plight of Iraq, without nuclear weapons, why would any country targeted by the US as a potential enemy, not be driven to arm itself with the great friend making nuclear weapons. India develops nuclear weapons, and becomes a fast friend of the US. Pakistan develops nuclear weapons and becomes Bush’s favored Muslim dictator. China has a nuclear arsenal, as does Russia, and the US is intensely seeking peaceful bilateral trade agreements with them. Hell Bush even visits Putin and chums it up for all the world to see, despite Putin’s removing democracy from Russia.
The message to Iran could not be clearer. The sooner it can get nuclear weapons, the sooner it too can dictate terms of friendship with the likes of Bush. Fail to obtain them before the US exits Iraq, and Iran could be the US’s next invasion target like Iraq and Afghanistan.
The race for nuclear arms is back in full force, thanks to Bush and the neo-cons. What is laughable is the neo-cons say they are making the world safer.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 17, 2005 01:55 AMWe must invade Iran!!! Those IAEA Inspectors are just dumb fools being lead by the nose!!! Those UN morons are useless and irrelevant!!! We can go-it-alone!!! Once the World sees the resolve and firepower of the US, rogue Regimes like North Korea will beg to surrender!!! This will change the entire Middle East!!! Better yet, Iranian Oil will pay for the Oil!!! Iranians will welcome us and be grateful for our Freedoms!!! We can be in and out with minimal cost in GI lives!!!
Invade Iran NOW!!!
Posted by: Aldous at August 17, 2005 02:28 AMJack, everyone - the IAEA, the EU, Russia, everyone - acknowledges that Iran is most likely trying to build nuclear weapons, and that it’s a bad thing. The question is, what do you do about it?
By dotting the ‘i’s and crossing the ‘t’s on negotiations, it’s easier to get countries like China and Russia to take stronger measures when the matter is referred to the UN Security Council.
US intelligence says Iran is a decade or more away from a bomb. Just like Iraq, we’ve got plenty of time to convince Iran they don’t need one - or to build a broad international coalition to dismantle their program.
Let’s not screw ourselves again, like we did with Iraq.
Go Aldous Go
You invade! I say let’s just nuke Iran!
I’m just wondering, have you ever considered live and let live. Of course, what I don’t understand is how guys like you are so positive that you have the right answer for everyone all of the time. You must be one of them bible thumpers who gets God’s will intervenously like GWrongBush.
JohntheCurmudgeon, it just so happens that Aldous is a liberal, on most things. He was being facetious. There is a reason we have a policy that stipulates, Critique the Message, Not the Messenger. Your comment clearly violates our policy, since Aldous is a messenger here at WB like the rest of us posting and commenting.
This will be your only warning, to comply and retain your comment priviliges here.
Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at August 17, 2005 12:15 PM(accidentally hit Post button before fiishing final sentence)
..ascribing “evil” to us, but never to “others” can’t be coming from a good place.
The race for nuclear arms is back in full force, thanks to Bush and the neo-cons.
You can’t spell conquer without neo-con! =D
Posted by: Taylor at August 17, 2005 06:10 PMLibs,
Why don’t you just tell us more about your “smart”
liberal (communist) history of the world ?
You find US the evil in evrething happend in that stone age society.You find excuse for ALL the socialist, communists or arabs terrorists .
You know what? MOVE there and be one of them as your minds are .
Now, now george, calm down. No one is going to take your fear and hate away from you. Know what? If you think having a discussion is such a disquieting thing for you, go back to your reality shows? Notice I didn’t call you any names?
Posted by: weewilie94 at August 18, 2005 08:07 AMgeorge:
Actually, Canada, France and England are all Liberal Strongholds.
Iran, Syria, Russia and Pakistan seem to be nice Conservative Bastions.
Feel free to visit them.
Posted by: Aldous at August 18, 2005 08:40 AMphx8:
Why not encourage friendly relations with Iran? They are just as capable of evolving democracy as any other nation;
Hate to break it to you, but Iran already is a “democracy” (actually, a republic, same as us). Granted, they’re a “democracy” founded on Islam, much like the one we’ve created in Iraq, but they are as much of a “democracy” as we are. And apparently have been since 1979. CIA - The World Factbook — Iran
Posted by: Jarandhel at August 18, 2005 11:46 AMAldous
I ask again. Do you know any conservatives? You constantly make reference to things that none of my conservative friends believe or do. For me, the core conservative believe is in free markets. Iran, Syria, Russia and Pakistan have very unfree markets. Another core conservative belief is in individual, not group rights. I donā€™t see much of that idea there either. All four, however, believe in big government, lots of regulation (even control) of business and lots of government planning in the economy. What does that sound like to you?
Jarandhel
Democracy is used lightly when talking about Iran. I remember as a child learning that when something was called a “peoples republic” it actually meant dicatorship. Without a reasonably free market, you can’t have a reasonably free democracy.
In all actuality, if my choices are Russia, Syria, Iran, and Pakistan or Canada or France…. I would choose from the first group anyway… who would want to live in France or Canada????
Posted by: Load Toad 2W151 at August 18, 2005 12:51 PM“actually” is what I meant, I think I was mixing “in all actuality, and actually” my bad
Posted by: Load Toad 2W151 at August 18, 2005 12:54 PMshutting up now…I made a mistake on making a mistake (nervous laugh) ok I am going to go sit in the corner now if anyone needs me.
If you think Russia, Syria, Iran, and Pakistan are democracies you are not very bright. The will of the people does not rule in those countries. Those countries are still ruled by dictators.
Posted by: david at August 18, 2005 01:03 PMJack:
Iran isn’t called a people’s republic. It’s full name is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
As for a free market? It seems they’re working on that:
The current administration has continued to follow the market reform plans of the previous one and has indicated that it will pursue diversification of Iran’s oil-reliant economy. Iran is attempting to diversify by investing revenues in other areas, including petrochemicals. Iran also is hoping to attract billions of dollars worth of foreign investment by creating a more favorable investment climate (i.e.,reduced restrictions and duties on imports, creation of free-trade zones)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
There’s also universal suffrage, the right of women to hold office, a struggle between conservatives and reformists in Iranian politics… sounds democratic to me.
But in any case, if we are touting the creation of an islamic republic in Iraq as a “success” in “spreading democracy”, then what on earth would prevent Iran from also being one? And they’ve been in the region for decades. Oops, guess that democracy domino theory doesn’t really work.
Posted by: Jarandhel at August 18, 2005 01:04 PMDavid:
You should tell our CIA that, then. Their factbook says it’s an elected republic where even women get the right to vote. Apparently the CIA is just not very bright.
Posted by: Jarandhel at August 18, 2005 01:06 PMThe Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts and serves for life, although he can theoretically be deposed by the same assembly. Although the members of the Assembly of Experts are elected by public vote, the Guardian Council (which is appointed by the Supreme Leader) vets the candidates before the election, so the process is not completely democratic. The candidates must be members of the Shi’a clergy. It should be noted that the Ayatollah Khomeini is specially mentioned in the constitution of Iran as the first Supreme Leader by the consensus of the Iranians, and he was not elected to the post by such an assembly.
The duties of The Supreme Leader are:
Delineation of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran after consultation with the Nation’s Expediency Discernment Council.
Supervision over the proper execution of the general policies of the system.
Issuing decrees for national referenda.
Assuming supreme command of the armed forces.
Declaration of war and peace, and the mobilization of the armed forces.
Appointment, dismissal, and acceptance of resignation of:
the fuqaha’ on the Guardian Council.
the supreme judicial authority of the country.
the head of the radio and television network of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
the chief of the joint staff.
the chief commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
the supreme commanders of the armed forces.
Resolving differences between the three wings of the armed forces and regulation of their relations.
Resolving the problems, which cannot be solved by conventional methods, through the Nation’s Exigency Council.
Signing the decree formalizing the elections in Iran for the President of the Republic by the people.
Dismissal of the President of the Republic, with due regard for the interests of the country, after the Supreme Court holds him guilty of the violation of his constitutional duties, or after a vote of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (The Majlis of Iran) testifying to his incompetence on the basis of Article 89 of the Constitution.
Pardoning or reducing the sentences of convicts, within the framework of Islamic criteria, on a recommendation (to that effect) from the head of the Judiciary. The Leader may delegate part of his duties and powers to another person.
doesn’t sound to democratic to me
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran
Jarandhel,
All four, however, believe in big government, lots of regulation (even control) of business and lots of government planning in the economy. What does that sound like to you?Let’s see…it sounds like America, thanks to the policies of the Bush administration.
We now have the biggest govenment in our history, government planning in the economy (eg., tax cuts—during wartime to boot—to supposedly “stimulate” the economy), and a market that is considerably less free (unless you consider the government giving non-competitive bids and huge entitlements to corporations a “free” market?). By your own words, I assume the Bush administration and Congress do not meet with your approval?
Posted by: Charles Wager at August 18, 2005 01:32 PM
Jack
I guess it really doesn’t matter does it.
If the evil US and her allies can have nukes, why not our enemies?
Afterall, it would be better for us to let them have them and not make the “world” mad at us again.
The replies to this great piece of info are very telling.
Instead of worrying about how this happened or just how bad it may be, everybody would rather climb into their holes and say who cares! fair is fair! It’s ALL Bush’s fault!
No cause for concern, just more blaming.
“Thanks to our dealings with Europe, even when we got a 50-day ultimatum, we managed to continue the work for two years. This way we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan. This way we carried out the work to complete Natanz, and on top of that, we even gained benefits.”
“Iran has demonstrated a capability possessed by only about ten countries. Because of the characteristics of gas centrifuges, the Iranian facility could be used for the production of low enriched uranium for civil purposes or highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, depending on the decision of the Iranian government.”
Let’s hope Europe remembers to dot the “i’s” and cross the “t’s” next time.
OR we can just give them a big group hug and tell them we feel their pain. That’ll fix everything.
Jarandhel,
I’d give the Iranians credit for a stable and, well, relatively democractic government. As others have already pointed out, the Guardian Council and the Mullahs occasionally trump the political process, but all in all, the Iranians do a better job than an awful lot of other countries.
the evil US and her allies can have nukes, why not our enemies?
how can you hate the country you call home? my advice to someone who doesn’t like this country is to do something about it. if i don’t like something i try and change it. i don’t sob about it. if i can’t do anything about it then i avoid it at all costs (ie move out). i have one more question. why would you give nukes to countries like that? if the gang members next door didn’t have guns what would you do? would you walk over there and give them some of yours? that would be the nice thing to do. God forbid anyone be without a killing weapon. lets make the world a better place and give a weapon to anyone that is without.
GTHOM
Posted by: david at August 18, 2005 03:51 PMlittle off topic but ties in with Iraq, Iran, and oil
I talk to this guy at a gas station almost every day on my way home from work. He said that they are putting all of their employees (except mgrs) on part time. Why? To get out of paying for health (sick) care. Hmmmm……..
This is in light of record profits.
The US oil companies are robbing the citizens and the citizens like it.
Why won’t Bush help with problem problems like these? He sure can shake a sword at countries whose leaders names he can’t pronounce. I don’t think he cares about the citizens of the Peoples Republic of the United States.
Posted by: MyPetGoat at August 18, 2005 04:20 PM“if the gang members next door didn’t have guns what would you do?”
I would go over, give them a great big hug and tell them it is MY fault they were criminals.
Oh, and then I would teach them all about how everything else wrong with their life was Bush’s fault.
Posted by: kctim at August 18, 2005 04:37 PMIt is not your fault that they are gang members. It is the fault of the person or persons who raised them. I am a good person but I can’t be in the home of every underprivileged person to make sure they are raised properly. One of these days the people who raise the “gang members” are going to have to take responsibility for their actions or lack there of.
Also, if Bush is hurting them it is because he doesn’t revoke government programs that give them money to sit on their lazy butts. It is not Bush’s fault that they kill people, live off of the system, disown their family, rape, steal, and who knows what else. The fact that people can earn money for doing nothing baffles me. Kctim it is not your fault. It is the democrats fault for starting those programs that turned people into takers. If you encourage a lazy person to be lazy what do you think the repercussions will be. If you don’t know just look around. There are underpriviledged people everywhere you look.
David
With all due respect, I have to ask if you are new to this site?
kctim
I forgot to tell you to go back over to the gang members house because he lifted your wallet while you were hugging him.
GTHOM
Posted by: david at August 18, 2005 05:31 PMkctim
I am not new. I have been coming to this site for at least a year. Do you mind if I ask why you were wondering?
Posted by: David at August 18, 2005 05:54 PMYour comment just caught me off-guard I guess.
I’m one of the biggest personal responsibility supporters on here and I thought you were either new were being sarcastic. My bad.
My initial post did have some sarcasm in it.
Invade Iran NOW!!!
Aldous, you may have finaly come up with a good idea. That way you can knock Bush even more.
david,
how can you hate the country you call home?
It’s easy when your taught that way from childhood.
MyPetGoat
The US oil companies are robbing the citizens and the citizens like it.
Speak for yourself.
He said that they are putting all of their employees (except mgrs) on part time. Why? To get out of paying for health (sick) care. Hmmmm……..
Yeah, and I was talking to one who had just filled up a space ship. You ever stop to think that maybe he’s a little disgruntaled. If this where even a little bit true don’t you think the liberial media would be all over it?
Why won’t Bush help with problem problems like these?
I guess you think he can control the world markets or what some company decides to do?
Posted by: Ron Brown at August 18, 2005 09:00 PMGranted, they’re a “democracy” founded on Islam, much like the one we’ve created in Iraq, but they are as much of a “democracy” as we are.
Just to clarify, the CIA actually refers to Iran as a “theocratic republic” and to the U.S. as a “Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition.” It’s just not accurate to say they’re as much a democracy as we are, despite the “republic” designations. In Iran, the elections simply don’t affect the people who hold the real political power. And for all the problems facing America, we’re not yet a theocracy, though it often feels we’re headed in that direction under the current administration.
For me, the core conservative believe is in free markets.
I think that’s true. It’s too bad it’s not a core belief of Republicans.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at August 18, 2005 10:34 PMGeeee…you don’t know nothing about Iran ! just some info in internet i think you have ! poor iranian ppl ! poor all of the world !
Posted by: Samuel at August 19, 2005 11:34 AMJust to clarify, the CIA actually refers to Iran as a “theocratic republic” and to the U.S. as a “Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition.”
Yeah, the slant of the CIA articles is pretty obvious, since they make sure to label the US government as constitutionally based but do not refer to Iran’s government in the same way, despite later mention of the Iranian Constitution in the section on the legal system. Funny, isn’t that? Clearly, “Constitution-based theocratic republic” would be more accurate.
It’s just not accurate to say they’re as much a democracy as we are, despite the “republic” designations. In Iran, the elections simply don’t affect the people who hold the real political power.
Odd, I thought that was the basis of the Third Party complaints about the Two-Party system in America?
More seriously, I’m not sure that is the case in Iran. There has been a struggle lately between reformist and conservative movements in Iran. The previous president of Iran, whose term just ended, was widely regarded as Iran’s first reformist president, elected largely due to the female and youth vote. Obviously, those who hold power do change.
And for all the problems facing America, we’re not yet a theocracy, though it often feels we’re headed in that direction under the current administration.
Depends on who you ask anymore. There are many, including people in public office, who are quite happy to proclaim that this is a Christian nation, and the constitution is founded on Christian principles, with rights and law coming from the Christian God alone.
Posted by: Jarandhel at August 19, 2005 04:50 PM
