I would not take the EU and Russian positions at face value.
There is an element of ‘good cop, bad cop’ going on.
Ahmadinejad needs to be given a chance to back down on enrichment, but feel that he has scored a victory over the USA
Nobody except Islamicists want Iran to have Nuclear weapons capabilities, especially Russia and most Europeans - just think what the Chechens could get up to.
What possible bribe or threat could make him back down, considering what happened to Saddam when he tried cooperation ?
I expect quite a few non “Islamicists” in Iran want nukes, with American frothing at the mouth on the border.
I’m not buying it. Maybe you are right…time will tell. I think the Euro’s are just doing what they do best…dithering. As to Russia, at least their motives make some sense…its all about hard currency and oil with them.
We are kind of past that point by now. This is exactly why the Iran’s (and the USA’s) of the world don’t take the UN seriously. How many ‘deadlines’ need to go by before something happens? Why exactly SHOULD Iran take these things seriously? If you are right, the Euro’s are STILL playing games, even though Iran was given a firm deadline…and deliberately farted in its general direction while continueing to do what it fully intended to do from the start.
He shouldn’t have painted himself into a corner if he really is looking for a face saving way out ( :dubious: ). I’m still not buying that this is the game the Euro’s are playing. I think they are dithering, and will dither until either Iran has a nuke or until someone else does something. Then they can sit back and point fingers at whoever it is (the USA, Israel, space aliens, etc) and say that THEY were still trying to negotiate, to play good cop bad cop, to give the poor Iranians a face saving way out, blah blah blah. If only we had given them a bit more time, they were right on the cusp of success…
:dubious:
Maybe thats true. I guess we’ll see. Certainly I don’t think its in the Euro’s best interest to let Iran get the damn things. Its not in Russia’s LONG TERM best interests either, though I’m unsure they see it that way. Its certainly not in the US’s best interest. But the US is fucked atm with our Iraqi adventure, and if the Euro’s are counting on Israel, I’m unsure they will do their part and save the Euro’s bacon while giving them a convinent scape goat to point fingers at and piss and moan about. The Euro’s may actually have to DO something this time on their own…gods help us all. :eek:
-XT
@Der Trihs
I would be interested to listen to the BBC Farsi broadcasts
Given that actually getting the enrichment process going will take a bit of time, having Nukes is a bit academic if Iranians really think that the USA will attack
@Xtisme
The Russians are oozing oil, they have Europe by the balls, and they know it.
Russia is going to be very, very rich, and provided they don’t squeeze us too hard then I’m rather pleased that they will be able to enjoy a decent standard of living.
They don’t much need money from Iran, and they know a lot more about Islamists than most people.
Controversial as it sounds, Russia is a natural ally of the West.
Maybe the Euros are dithering, by Euros I mean French and German (since I am British and although I don’t approve of a lot of what has gone on, I don’t think we have done much dithering - although 7/7 really surprized us).
On the other hand, keeping a channel of communication open is not a bad idea, if the French turned round and said ‘soddit’ to Iran, then it would not do anyone much good.
The Iranians Ayotollahs owe one to France, they gave asylum to Khomeini, which puts them in a pretty good position to explain what is going on to a bunch of rather unsophisticated bigots.
I am quite certain that Israel will take out any enrichment facility, I’m also certain that it will be very difficult to prove that they did it. Remember Saddam’s Supergun ?
Switching into ‘European’ mode, we, like the USA are a product of our history, and while we don’t object to low level skirmishes, we are deeply apprehensive of a full scale confrontation. We prefer to use a stiletto rather than a club, we prefer bribery to spending the cash on munitions.
I don’t have much faith in most ‘European’ leaders, but behind them there are people with a lot more common sense and sense of history.
I don’t take their manoeverings at face value, but I don’t think that they are as dim as all that. Notice how the UN waited until the Lebanese outcome was inevitable, then pulled Israel back from the ‘end game’.
Quite a neat face saver for all concerned, and it established a form of principle.
Then they were appallingly stupid, since Reagan was not a fundamentalist Christian. He didn’t even go to church. He was probably the LEAST religious President of the 20th century.
He was buddies with Falwell, and certainly percieved as the fundie’s ally.
Except that America is bogged down right now; it won’t necessarily remain so. If Iran or anyone wants to do something we won’t like, now is the time.
You assume that they can. You also assume that anyone will care about proof; this isn’t a courtroom.
Well, they bombed Saddam’s Nuclear plant, and they assassinated the Belgian guy behind his Supergun, so I don’t see why they should not run true to form.
Proof … well some people will believe anything, others will believe nothing, if there is no evidence then some people will be suspicious …
And the Iranians know this, and have taken precautions. They don’t have a single, vulnerable, site, but many protected ones. Without going nuclear I doubt the Israelis can do much.
All those sites are vulnerable to long term infiltration.
I think you’ve watched too many James Bond movies, if you think they can take out a large government program with “infilteration”. Especially large scale infilteration; that would just increase the chances of the Israelis getting caught.
Ahem, I said long term
I don’t understand your reference to Cubby Broccolli’s rather silly films.
regime change=changing world order
True but if you rely on the pathalogical liar to tell you the color of the sky, I can question your sources. However, additional reading has convinced me that there is a Hezbollah presence here in the U.S. that goes beyond the mere existence of sympathizers. I am not sure what that proves. There is no evidence that they are capable of committing violent acts (i.e. they haven’t done anything violent to date and there is no evidence that they ever will).
I guess my point is that you are using words like “cell” and pointing to activities like taking pictures of national monuments that couldn’t even get you charged with conspiracy as some sort of proof that Hezbollah is all set up to import waves of terrorists and attack us on Iran’s orders.
[/quote]
And that is what keeps me open to the idea of bombing Iran if it stars developing the nuke.
I disagree. I think the original default position (at least my original default position) is to trust your government and everything it says. When your government proves itself a liar, your default position changes. I will need more to support action against Iran than George Bush telling me its necessary.
If there were proven weapons making facilities. Not nuclear power plants, not nuclear research… proof that they are building a nuke, then I say that they have to buy their nuclear power from the French like everyone else and then I think we can bomb their nuclear program.
What would it take to convince me that they were actually making nukes? I dunno, how about the UN security council agreeing that Iran is developing the nuke, then I would support bombing with or without UN approval, but I’d like to see independent third party confirmation as long as this adminstration is in power.
There is a difference because we (as the world’s only super power) still believe that we can do pretty much whatever we want without resorting to nukes, Iran would have no other avenue.
Sorry Puzzler but I didnt want to highjack. I thought it was something to think about. The terms and results were the same ,but did not want to make conversation veer off too far.