Posted on 09/02/2004 10:42:10 AM PDT by truthandlife
Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry has signaled a departure in U.S. policy regarding Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Kerry aides said that, if elected, his administration, in cooperation with the European Union, would offer a deal to Iran that would allow the Islamic republic to retain its nuclear facilities. In return, Teheran would have to pledge to return all imported nuclear fuel acquired for its reactor at Bushehr.
The Kerry position has long been recommended by State Department circles. Current and former U.S. diplomats have warned against a U.S. confrontation with Iran, instead proposing a so-called "grand bargain" with Teheran that would include a removal of sanctions imposed on Iran.
Earlier this year, the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace issued a report that called on the United States, Europe and Russia to devise "a combination of costs and incentives" to change Iran's course. The report recommended that Iran "be guaranteed a commercially viable supply of low-enriched uranium for its nuclear reactors and for the removal and disposal of spent fuel," Middle East Newsline reported.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance for the Self-Employed — Special Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us," Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards said. In speeches and interviews granted this week, Edwards stressed that a Democratic presidential administration would not ease U.S. opposition to an Iranian nuclear bomb.
"A nuclear Iran is unacceptable for so many reasons, including the possibility that it creates a gateway and the need for other countries in the region to develop nuclear capability – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, potentially others," Edwards told the Washington Post.
Kerry first discussed Iran policy in a speech in June. During that speech, he said his administration would attempt to reach an agreement with the Iranians, a position later echoed by Edwards.
"At the end of the day [Bush officials] can argue all they want about their policies," Edwards said. "But the test is: Have they worked? And Iran is further along in developing a nuclear weapon than they were when George Bush came into office."
The Bush administration has pressed the International Atomic Energy Agency to continue with inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities.
The administration has sought to bring the Iranian nuclear issue to the United Nations Security Council for the imposition of sanctions.
But Bush said in a television interview on Aug. 31 that he seeks a diplomatic solution to end Iran's nuclear program.
"The military option is always the last option for a president, not the first," Bush said.
I guess Kerry wants to be like Clinton with North Korea. The 1994 North Korean agreement between the Clinton administration and Pyongyang aimed at curbing Kim Jong-il's nuclear ambitions.
Under the agreement -- negotiated after former President Jimmy Carter traveled to Pyongyang on an unofficial mission -- North Korea agreed to freeze its plutonium-based nuclear program in return for U.S. fuel aid and the provision by the U.S. and its allies of alternative, civilian reactors for power supply purposes.
Pyongyang had begun cheating even before Bush was elected. In Oct. 2002, the State Department challenged North Korea with evidence of a covert uranium-enrichment program and said the North Koreans admitted to it.
The uranium project violated the Agreed Framework, which quickly began to unravel.
Really great idea, John Kerry.
LOL!!!
Be afraid, be very afraid.
The Iranian regime sees the U.S. as the Great Satan.
They will seek to destroy us (one nuke in NYC).
Kerry would enable them to do it.
I guess Ketchup Boy's and the pEU's position is as long as the fallout doesn't extend too far out into the eastern Med, they're cool with it.
And when the Iranians break the deal Edwards can sue them at the International Court in the Hague.
Unfortunately it is not that simple. We have oil interest in he Middle East and we cannot afford for the ME to be in complete disarray. If we did not export so much oil then we could probably have this policy but our economy is built on oil.
One common thread to all these policies. Treason.
Great, which city will burn first: Tel Aviv or New York?
Another boffo idea from Kerry! We'll give Iran the means and know-how to build nuclear energy plants despite their sitting on a large portion of the world's oil. Then, we'll ask them nicely to return the spent fuel rods, and if they don't...horror of horrors, we'll know they're not our friend. Is this the Al Franken school of diplomacy or what?
We saw the great Satan on 9-11.
The Democrats could be nominating men like Zell Miller, and instead are nominating those of the Ted Kennedy/John Kerry stripe and excoriating Miller. Fortunately, it appears that Kerry's campaign is being run quite ineptly and his long slide to a Dukakis/Mondale finish may already be appearing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.