Iran offer doesn't go far enough

[elsid13]

Well time has come to bring this issue back to the fore front. Is there diplomatic solutions, an embargo or back the military strike opition.?

U.S. says Iran proposal falls short By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
10 minutes ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060824/..._pe/us_iran_20

The Bush administration said Wednesday a proposal by Iran for nuclear negotiations falls short of U.N. demands that it cease uranium enrichment, and the U.S. began plotting unspecified "next moves" with other governments.

Those could include U.N. sanctions against Iran unless it reverses course and agrees to a verifiable halt to enrichment activities that can be central to making nuclear weapons.

The State Department, in a terse statement, acknowledged that Iran considered its proposal to be a serious one. "We will review it," the statement said in what appeared to be a conciliatory gesture to a government it regularly denounces as a sponsor of terror.

But the statement went on to say that Iran's response to a joint offer of U.S, and European trade and other benefits if the enrichment program was halted "falls short of the conditions set by the Security Council" — full and verifiable suspension of all uranium-enrichment activity.

"We are consulting closely, including with other members of the Security Council, on next steps," it said. The United Nations has set a deadline of next Thursday for a formal reply by Tehran.

President Bush met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the White House and then discussed Iran's proposal in a telephone call with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

The call was initiated by Annan, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

The administration has cautioned Iran that it will seek sanctions in the Security Council if Tehran does not step enriching uranium.

Administration officials have refrained from outlining what punishment they might have in mind. It could include economic or political penalties, perhaps international curbs on trade.

Rice, meanwhile, telephoned Javier Solana, the senior European Union diplomat who oversees exchanges with Iran. No account of their conversation, nor of her meeting with the president, was provided.

By not rejecting Iran's proposal outright, the administration indicated there may be a basis for dealing with long-held concerns that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons, an allegation the Iranians deny.

"The diplomats are continuing to look at it," Perino said. "We're working with our allies."

France took a firm and quick stand. Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Iran must suspend uranium enrichment if it wants to return to negotiations.

Russia's foreign ministry, evidently ambivalent, said it would continue to seek a negotiated solution. And China appealed for dialogue, urging "constructive measures" by Iran and patience from the United States and its allies.

Iran met its self-imposed deadline Tuesday for responding to the U.S.-European offer, which includes the possibility of U.S. help for civilian nuclear programs — but only if Iran stops uranium enrichment.

On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, the House Intelligence Committee issued a report that concluded Iran was a strategic threat and a country focused on developing nuclear weapons capability. It also linked Iran to Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups.

"Iran's support of radical Islamists with weapons and money demonstrates in real terms the danger it poses to America and our allies," said the committee's chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (news, bio, voting record), R-Mich. He said Iran "will not be satisfied until it poses a threat to the entire world."

The report also said there are gaps in the ability of U.S. intelligence agencies to keep up with developments in Iran's nuclear program and suggested hiring more intelligence agents who speak Farsi.

[Spider]

in a way I hope things get worked out ...... But that Irian president took Americans as hostages ..... I still feel he needs to pay for that crime ...... I wouldnt take this scumbag manmyasshurts iran shít ball very serious ...........

[loborugger]

Iran is emboldened as we are hamstrung with our current excursion. I got a funny feeling this goes one of 2 ways... 1. We bomb the piss outta them. 2. We sit back and smile as they go on doing what they damn well please. I sincerely doubt they will stop their current program. We will either accept it or try to take it out. Neither choice is very savory.

[mhgaffney]

There wasn't much chance before that Iran would halt its enrichment program. In the wake of the Lebanon war the announcement is no surprise.

Let us fervently hope the Bush White House will listen to the goood advice of the 21 former generals and diplmats who pointed out the other day that there is no military solution to the current situation. They urged a process of direct negotiations -- something the neo cons have never tried.

Russia and China will veto any UN Sec Council resolution that gives Bush any excuse for a military attack. Nor in my opinion will they support sanctions.

That leaves only negotiations -- or war.

[SteveTensi13]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

there is no military solution to the current situation.

I think turning Iran into one vast glass parking lot would be a good solution!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by SteveTensi13

I think turning Iran into one vast glass parking lot would be a good solution!

...which is why you are a rent a cop at the local Dunkin' Donuts and not in a position which requires too much in the way of critical thinking skills.

[BroncoBuff]

Bush has such a horrible record of failing to AT LEAST TALK to all these countruies ... all these "folks that want to doo usss harm"

What's the problem with just talking? He sat on his hands with North Korea, Lebanon, and now Iran. WHY WON'T HE TALK?!

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Bush has such a horrible record of failing to AT LEAST TALK to all these countruies ... all these "folks that want to doo usss harm"

What's the problem with just talking? He sat on his hands with North Korea, Lebanon, and now Iran. WHY WON'T HE TALK?!

Have you ever heard him talk?

"Trying to stop suiciders -- which we're doing a pretty good job of on occasion -- is difficult to do. And what the Iraqis are going to have to eventually do is convince those who are conducting suiciders who are not inspired by Al Qaeda, for example, to realize there's a peaceful tomorrow." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 24, 2006

Hell, it's easier to just shoot missiles.

[bendog]

In bushii's world, he has the right and moral duty to invade a country whose regieme he finds offensive and whose economy could be beneficial to one of his master multinationals, and Israel has a moral right to occupy any territory and threaten any weapon without question.

We're better off if he doesn't talk.

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

There wasn't much chance before that Iran would halt its enrichment program. In the wake of the Lebanon war the announcement is no surprise.

Let us fervently hope the Bush White House will listen to the goood advice of the 21 former generals and diplmats who pointed out the other day that there is no military solution to the current situation. They urged a process of direct negotiations -- something the neo cons have never tried.

Russia and China will veto any UN Sec Council resolution that gives Bush any excuse for a military attack. Nor in my opinion will they support sanctions.

That leaves only negotiations -- or war.

Having done just abit of extra "homework" on the scenario wrt iran and current status, I have to agree. Negotiations are an absolute must. The broad sword needs to be "holstered" for the time being. In any case, the intelligence community must direct maximum effort on all of iran's facilities, infrastructure, military assets, etc...etc...to properly formulate a viable method of disabling them in short order. Not an easy task, at least 2 maybe 3 years worth of work. The election will have come and gone by then, so who knows where this ends up. Pretty key election from where I sit..dman

*I will say, iran gets "nukes" , all bets are off..

[bendog]

Given the record of the neocons, I'm not so sure that the world isn't better off if Iran has a nuke. And that's not a joke.

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by bendog

Given the record of the neocons, I'm not so sure that the world isn't better off if Iran has a nuke. And that's not a joke.

Explain...dman

[Hotrod]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Have you ever heard him talk?

"Trying to stop suiciders -- which we're doing a pretty good job of on occasion -- is difficult to do. And what the Iraqis are going to have to eventually do is convince those who are conducting suiciders who are not inspired by Al Qaeda, for example, to realize there's a peaceful tomorrow." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 24, 2006

Hell, it's easier to just shoot missiles.

thats pretty sad

[Rohirrim]

Maybe they could sweeten the deal and throw in some of those hot Iranian babes?

[bendog]

Originally Posted by defenseman

Explain...dman

well, at least Bushii and Haliburton can't invade them for their oil.

And, we'll truly only get to the root of muslim terrorists if there's a settlement in Palestine/Israel, and I see no indication Israel really wants one ... or one that entails a return to the 67 borders, which is really the only one that is remotely sellable to the Pales/Arabs. They need to be pressured into a peace settlement that includes normalization of relations with their neighbors. And yeah, the Pales need pressure too.

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by bendog

well, at least Bushii and Haliburton can't invade them for their oil.

And, we'll truly only get to the root of muslim terrorists if there's a settlement in Palestine/Israel, and I see no indication Israel really wants one ... or one that entails a return to the 67 borders, which is really the only one that is remotely sellable to the Pales/Arabs. They need to be pressured into a peace settlement that includes normalization of relations with their neighbors. And yeah, the Pales need pressure too.

Any sort of settlement Will NOT be over night. Isreael, presently, is licking her wounds and at the very start of "retraining" herself. I'm guessing, once all is as it should be, you may see some movement. In the meantime, they'll be on their guard. They'll fail in the "defense first" direction, then maybe sit down at the table and break bread.

There WILL NOT be any sort of military action taken on iran. It will be a while, if at all..dman

[bendog]

It's about power. With the fall of the soviet union there's been a power vacuum, but the US largely chose exert economic power which has resulted more from the tech revolution than from anything else. That is until the neocons came to power. In the ME, however, the fall of the soviets allowed the neocons in Israel to do whatever they wished, except when Sharon debacled in Lebanon the first time, and Bill Clinton pressured Arafat.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by bendog

Given the record of the neocons, I'm not so sure that the world isn't better off if Iran has a nuke. And that's not a joke.

The threat of an Iranian bomb has been exaggerated. After all, the US and USSR (the evil empiire) pointed thousands of nukes at each other during the Cold War -- and we survived. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) had its effect. Despite some tense moments, cooler heads prevailed.

Some have suggested a similar standoff would result in the Mideast if Iran gets the bomb. I hasten to add there is no hard evidence -- yet -- that they have made such a decision.

Israel's concerns have to do with the country's small size, which makes it vulnerable. Yet, it is highly unlikely that Iran could destroy Israel's retaliatory capability in a first strike. Israel has a triad of forces: subs armed with nuclear tipped cruise missiles, also a large bomber force, and missiles.

Inflammatory rhetoric aside, if you look at Iran's actual record it's obvious the threat level has been greatly exaggerated, no doubt, by the Zionists for their own strategic interests. Israel wants to preserve its nuclear hegemony in the Mideast. In the modern era Iran has never been the aggressor in war. It has never attacked or invaded its neighbors, though Iran has itself been invaded/attacked on several occasions. Iran did attack Iraq in self defense in the 1980s.

The current bad relations between the US and Iran are ironic. Tehran should be a US ally. Iran could have been a key part of the US grand design. Abundant evidence shows that US policy in the region is about controlling the flow of energy from the large oil/gas fields in central Asia. Startng in the 1990s the US carried on talks with the Taliban for the purpose of building a pipeline through Afghanistan. However when the Taliban proved uncooperative the neo cons decided to remove the Taliban and install a new friendlier government. This explains Afghan leader Karzai's ties to UNOCAL. Need I mention the pivotal role of 911 in this grand design?

The irony lies in the fact that Iran is actually the logical and prefered route to get oil/gas out of central Asia and to market. The US learned this lesson during WW II, when we funneled huge aid through Iran by railroad to Stalin, supporting his desparate fight against the Nazis. It's how we kept Stalin in the war.

It's only the continuing US support for Israel's colonies in the West Bank -- and Israel's creation of the world's largest prison in Gaza that prevents a warming of US-Iran relations.

BTW, I do not support an Iranian bomb. It's too dangerous. But there is no military solution: only a proccess of direct talks with all concerned parties -- leading to a win win for everyone. But this will only happen if the US pressures Israel to make a political settlement with the Palestinians.

For more on this go to

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7624.htm

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

BTW, I do not support an Iranian bomb. It's too dangerous. But there is no military solution: only a proccess of direct talks with all concerned parties -- leading to a win win for everyone. But this will only happen if the US pressures Israel to make a political settlement with the Palestinians.

This is a joke, right?

The Palestinians are certainly the reason for the enmity between the US and Iran. Forget the fact that they have been treated like dogs by their Arab brothers including Iran for a minute and consider why on earth Iran would give a flying fart about anything having to do with the Palestinians.

Okay...I just got it. It was a joke!

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by angryllama

This is a joke, right?

The Palestinians are certainly the reason for the enmity between the US and Iran. Forget the fact that they have been treated like dogs by their Arab brothers including Iran for a minute and consider why on earth Iran would give a flying fart about anything having to do with the Palestinians.

Okay...I just got it. It was a joke!

Don't flatter yourself. It was no joke.

For the record, Iran is not an Arab nation. It's predominantly Persian.

You are correct that the Palestinians have been badly treated by some of the Arab governments. But remember these are mostly dictatorships or authoritarian regimes that the US has armed and supported.

The Arab man in the street strongly supports the Palestinian cause.

In 2002 the Arab world offered Israel a full peace treaty -- not just recognition but full normalized relations -- an end to the conflict -- if Israel would abide by UN Sec Council resolutions (242 and 338) on Palestine -- meaning: withdraw from the occupied territories and allow the Palestinians to have their mini state. Israel's PM Ariel Sharon never responded to the proposal at all, insofar as I know. He ignored it.

In 2003 Iran announced that it also supports this formula for a peace settlement. This, then, holds the key to resolving the current crisis. Of course, the American people don't know about Iran's position -- because the US press has never reported the facts.

Maybe you missed my post on this. See the following:

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14496.htm

[baja]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

...which is why you are a rent a cop at the local Dunkin' Donuts and not in a position which requires too much in the way of critical thinking skills.

Cops guarding donuts - now there is a bad idea!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Cole on Iran intel: Folks, we are being set up again...

Republican Congressional Report on Iran Riddled With Errors

Here is what the professionals are saying about the Republican-dominated Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy report on Iran that slams US intelligence professionals for poor intelligence on Iran: The report demonstrates that these Republicans have poor intelligence . . . on Iran. What follows is summaries of things I've seen from other experts but I can't identify them without permission.

First of all, former CIA professional Larry Johnson and Jim Marcinkowski point out that the Republicans have a lot of damn gall. It was high members of this Republican administration who leaked to the Iranians and the whole world the name of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative who spent her professional career combatting the proliferation of WMD and was, at the time she was betrayed by Traitor Rove and his merry band, working on Iran. Had it not been for these Republican figures, none of whom has yet been punished in any way for endangering US national security, we might know more about Iran.

It is being said that the staffer who headed the report is Frederick Fleitz, who was a special assistant to John Bolton when Bolton was undersecretary of state for proliferation issues. Fleitz was sent to the unemployment line when Condi wisely exiled Bolton to the United Nations, where there is a long history of ill-tempered despots who like to bang their shoes on the podium. So this report is the long arm of Bolton popping up in Congress. It is Neoconservative propaganda.

We are beset by instant experts on contemporary Iran, like the medievalist Bernard Lewis, who wrongly predicted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would attack Israel on August 22, based on Lewis's weird interpretation of his alleged millenarian beliefs. Once the Neoconservatives went so far as actually to make fun of reality in the hearing of a reporter, their game was up.

Pete Hoekstra, who is the chair of this committee, has a long history of saying things that are, well, disconnected to reality. Like when he made a big deal about some old shells with mustard gas found in Iraq left over from the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, and claimed that these were the fabled and long-sought Iraqi WMD over which 2600 of our service people are six feet under and another 8000 in wheelchairs. Nope.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/repu...report-on.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Iran's Nuclear plans rely on reactor U.S. gave shah

Chicago Tribune

In the heart of Tehran stands one of Iran's most important nuclear facilities, a dome-shaped building where scientists have conducted secret experiments that could help the country build atomic bombs. It was provided to the Iranians by the United States. The Tehran Research Reactor represents a little-known aspect of the international uproar over the country's alleged weapons program. Not only did the U.S. provide the reactor in the 1960s as part of a Cold War strategy, America also supplied the weapons-grade uranium needed to power the facility — fuel that remains in Iran and could be used to help make nuclear arms.

As the U.S. and other countries wrestle with Iran's refusal to curb its nuclear capabilities, an examination of the Tehran facility sheds light on the degree to which the United States has been complicit in Iran's developing those capabilities.

Saturday Iran inaugurated a heavy-water plant, expanding its nuclear program only days before the U.N. deadline that threatens sanctions unless Tehran curbs activities the West fears are meant to make atomic weapons, The Associated Press reported.

The move was the latest defiance by Iran to concerns expressed by the U.N. Security Council. Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shrugged off the possibility of sanctions, insisting they would not slow Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"We tell the Western countries not to cause trouble for themselves because Iranian people are determined to make progress and acquire technology," Ahmadinejad said after opening the plant. He stressed his government's contention that the nuclear program is peaceful — intended only to produce fuel for nuclear power plants.

Though the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, has found no proof Iran is building a bomb, the agency says the country has repeatedly concealed its nuclear activities from inspectors. And some of these activities have taken place in the U.S.-supplied reactor, IAEA records show, including experiments with uranium, a key material in the production of nuclear weapons.

U.S. officials point to those activities as evidence Iran is trying to construct nuclear arms, but they do not publicly mention that the work has taken place in a U.S.- supplied facility.

The U.S. provided the reactor when America was eager to prop up Iran's shah, who also was aligned against the Soviet Union at the time. After the Islamic revolution toppled the shah in 1979, the reactor became a reminder that in geopolitics, today's ally can become tomorrow's threat. [Remember this when you think about Bush selling nuclear technology to India, et al] Also missing from the current debate over Iran's nuclear intentions is emerging evidence that its research program may be more troubled than previously known.

The Bush administration has portrayed the program as a sophisticated operation that has skillfully hidden its true mission of making the bomb. But in the case of the Tehran Research Reactor, a study by a top Iranian scientist suggests otherwise.

After a serious accident in 2001 at the U.S.- supplied reactor, the scientist concluded that poor quality control at the facility was a "chronic disease." Problems included carelessness, sloppy bookkeeping and a staff so poorly trained that workers had a weak understanding of "the most basic and simple principles of physics and mathematics," according to the study, presented at an international nuclear conference in 2004 in France.

The Iranian scientist, Morteza Gharib, told the Chicago Tribune that management of the facility had improved in the past three years. When asked whether sloppiness at the reactor might have contributed to some of Iran's troubles with the IAEA, Gharib wrote in an e-mail: "It is always possible, for any system, to commit infractions inadvertently due to lack of proper bookkeeping."

Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at Harvard University, said bungling might be to blame for some infractions, but the Iranians clearly concealed major nuclear activities, such as building a facility to enrich uranium. "This was not an oversight," he said.

Another overlooked concern about the Tehran reactor is the weapons-grade fuel the U.S. provided Iran in the 1960s — about 10 pounds of highly enriched uranium, the most valuable material to bomb makers. This uranium has already been burned in the reactor, but the "spent fuel" is still highly enriched and could be used in a bomb. Normally, spent fuel is so radioactive that terrorists could not handle it without causing themselves great harm. But the spent fuel in Iran been stored for so long that it is probably no longer highly radioactive and could be handled easily, U.S. scientists say.

The fuel is about one-fifth the amount needed to make a nuclear weapon, but experts said it could be combined with other material to construct a bomb.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/143862