Posted on 08/10/2004 4:56:49 PM PDT by Clive
Iran has issued an extraordinary list of demands to Britain and other European countries, telling them to provide advanced nuclear technology, conventional weapons and a security guarantee against nuclear attack by Israel.
Teheran's request, said by British officials to have "gone down very badly", sharply raises the stakes in the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme, which Britain and America believe is aimed at making an atomic bomb.
Iran's move came during crisis talks in Paris this month with senior diplomats from Britain, France and Germany.
The "EU-3" were trying to convince Iranian officials to honour an earlier deal to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment programme, which is ostensibly designed to make fuel for nuclear power stations but could also be used to make fissile material for nuclear bombs. Iranian officials refused point-blank to comply, saying they had every right under international law to pursue "peaceful" nuclear technology.
They then stunned the Europeans by presenting a letter setting out their own demands.
Iran said the EU-3 should support Iran's quest for "advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use" - a reference to equipment that has both civilian and military applications.
The Europeans should "remove impediments" preventing Iran from having such technology, and stick to these commitments even if faced with "legal (or) political . . . limitations", an allusion to American pressure or even future international sanctions against Iran.
More astonishingly, Iran said the EU-3 should agree to meet Iran's requirements for conventional weapons and even "provide security assurances" against a nuclear attack on Iran.
This is a reference to Israel's nuclear arsenal, believed to include some 200 warheads and long-range missiles to deliver them.
The EU-3 are still debating over how to respond, but British officials said the Iranian letter was "extremely surprising, given the delicate state of process". Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, will have to decide whether to adopt a more confrontational policy.
America is demanding that the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which meets next month, refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. US officials are also openly discussing "covert" means of disrupting the Iranian nuclear programme, while Israel has openly threatened military action.
However, there were signs yesterday that the next report of Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA director general, may give Iran a boost.
A key mystery for the past year has been the source of traces of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) found by IAEA inspectors at several sites in Iran. Teheran claimed this was "contamination" of equipment imported from other countries, rather than proof that it had secretly made HEU.
According to diplomats, inspectors have confirmed that in at least one case the contamination did come from Pakistan, as Iran claimed.
Other contamination issues remain unresolved, and may never be settled. Moreover there are several other open questions.
My goodness, don't tell me Jimmuh Cartuh isn't a living saint? Why that godly man devotes every waking moment to building shelter for the poor. He got a quick $8 mill. for his autobiography, which nobody read but RATs the the Nobel Prize committee, and Rosalyn got only a few mill less for hers. Isn't that special. Because of Jimmuh's colossal incompetence and refusal to admit same, we have three thousand dead in NY, the Middle East a powder keg, and that fool running around Europe badmouthing this country and its president at a time of war. Clinton's a sociopath, a nutjob. Jimmy C. is a small minded, petty, Bible thumping jerk. He gives Christians a bad name. Sorry.
I just read this! I'd hoped Israel would take care of them for us but read a thread the other day that the White House has warned Israel off of Iran. My hope is that's just for public consumption.
The problem is that the window for an Osirak-type strike probably closed about a year ago. By that point the Iranian nuclear program was too dispersed to strike with even the whole of the Israeli Air Force.
People here need to understand something: if we strike Iran or North Korea at a time when we beleive they have nuclear weapons we cannot, repeat cannot, simply strike a single target or even a single set of targets.
If we're going to do it we have to scourge every point in the entire nation which may contain nuclear facilities or launch sites- and we're going to have to do some of them with nuclear weapons.
This is why, IMHO, Iran should be struck and North Korea should not. All hyperbole aside, North Korea won't, even a decade now, have more than a half-dozen missiles mated with bombs which could hit the United States- and our BMD systems will be more than enough to take those out, even if all were launched. North Korea should be left to China, Japan, and South Korea- all of whom are big boys and can look after themselves.
The Iranians are the bigger danger
But by doing this Iran would essentially be announcing to the world that they're "on the verge" of acquiring nukes, which obviously isn't in their best interest (to say the least). ......unless, of course, they already have them.
Israel should not.
We should.
We have big balls.
We can do it surgically.
They have to live there.
We have to protect american and brit forces in the region.
I think we will.
BEFORE the election.
Bush will be a hotwartime president, come November.
Iran's mullah's better beware their sleeping patterns.
YOu can be damned sure, we are.
Do you really wonder which ones?
Didn't think so...
If Iran uses a nuke, the US would be within its rights to lay down a pattern over any region of Iran it so chooses. About 500 square miles would be gone. Within the 500 square miles would be about 90% of the Iranian military. It would be over at that point unless an ally of Iran wishes to continue.
Iran is in a horrible situation, and the mullahs know it. We know it is backing al-Sadr and other "insurgents". We know that it is supplying intelligence and money to terror organizations. We have every reason to expect Iran would supply nuclear capabilities to our enemies. We probably have the information now to build the case. And unlike Iraq, the extent of corrupt ties with France, Russia, Germany and other "powers" is greatly less than with the UN food-for-oil corruption that characterized Iraq. In fact, the Muslim fundamentalism threatens Russia (a threat Iraq did not pose).
This means less foreign opposition to regime change in Iran.
But the worst sign for Iran is $45 per barrel crude. The world economy tanks at that number (or grows too slowly to support incumbency). When Iraq shuts down two Persian Gulf pipelines in the face of Iran-supported "freedom fighters", the endgame for the mullahs is in sight.
I predict coalition troops on the ground in Iran before next summer and an active opposition ready to return Iran to a western-style economy and government.
With Iraq, Libya and Iran at full pumping capacity, spot prices for crude will be in the 20's, and the GOP candidate will be viable in 2008.
Well this belongs in your blog.
Frankly, I suspect it to be the latter.
Iran's behavior- such as seizing those British sailors, has become just too brazen.
The same is true with regard to their involvement in Iraq. If you kick over almost all of the trouble-makers in Iraq- Sadr, the Ba'athists, al-Qaeda/Ansar: you'll find Iran underneath.
The Iranians either have nukes, are about to have nukes, or want us to believe that they have nukes.
I incline towards the first.
Even the EU can no longer deal with these people
Oh, dear, you've been looking at Kerry's secret plan to avoid responsibility for anything, including what he said yesterday or for that matter, ten minutes ago. Can you believe RATs actually nominated this idiot? What can they have been thinking? That Hillary would leap in at the last moment and carry all before her in a tide of enthusiasm? The mind boggles.
They are asking for war.
They're likely to get it. They're not North Korea. They have no bargaining chips.
What are the bargaining chips of North Korea? Saving South Korea? I don't see much difference in what Iran's bargaining chips might be?
OTOH, this could also be bluster as the Israeli attack is at most two months away.
We shouldn't be considering politics in the same breath with national survival. The sitting President will do what will best ensure the survival of the country regardless of how it affects his chances in the next election or his Party in the election after.
No, we won't unless we have to. In avoiding use of our own nukes, we will regain the moral high ground.
Kerry's the result of two things:
1) A short talent bench among the 50-65 year old members of the Democratic Party.
2) A stupidly compressed primary system which inadvertently let what might otherwise have been a short-term "Kerry boom" turn into his nomination.
Has the Democrats run their primaries over five months or so, like they did thirty years ago, John Edwards would probably have been the nominee. And, while I don't like John Edwards, at least he's not manifestly incapable of fulfilling the most basic duties of the Presidency like Kerry is.
The Democratic Party in recent years has developed a bad habit of nominating for the Presidency people who are obviously psychologically incapable of handling the strains of national command.
the us is better able to take the heat.
I'm no expert on this stuff, very far from it. I do think I would be having some serious "secret" (if that's possible anymore) talks with Israel, and planning a timetable of them taking this threat out in a very short time.
Either way, it's a gamble for Bush, but it needs to be done anyway. Let the chips fall, and to hell with fallout. I believe the majority would side with doing away with this threat...for the moment.
FMCDH(BITS)
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.