Posted on 09/06/2004 7:32:34 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi has bluntly rejected a nuclear disarmament plan floated by US vice presidential hopeful John Edwards, calling it "campaigning."
Under the plan, thought to have originated with US presidential hopeful John Kerry, Iran could keep its nuclear power plants if it gave up the right to retain bomb-making nuclear fuel.
Floated to the Washington Post last week by Senator Edwards, the proposal was seen in some quarters as an indication that a Kerry presidency would take a dramaticaly different tack in its handling of relations with Iran, which is officially listed by the US as a state sponsor of terrorism -- in fact, as the "most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003."
Senator Edwards told the WPost that the proposal would represent a "great bargain" for Iran -- and that should Iran reject it, a Kerry administration would be forced to conclude that Iran actually was, as the Bush administration now contends, actively pursuing the weaponisation of nuclear materials.
He said the US would then rally European support for heavy sanctions against Iran.
"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," Senator Edwards told the WPost.
According to the WPost, Senator Kerry's proposal would see the Iranian nuclear fuel supply supervised and provided by other countries.
President Bush, however, has pressed for a complete end to Iran's nuclear development programme, saying that the country's vast petrochemical base negates any legitimate need for the development of a nuclear-driven source of power.
"Iran has no legitimate requirement for nuclear reactors, uranium enrichment or plutonium production capability. Its huge oil and gas reserves belie a need for even one reactor, let alone several," said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, according to China Daily.
Tehran, however, has said it is looking to the future needs of a population that has doubled in the past 25 years and shows no signs of slowing its growth -- or its need for energy, which would grow even faster than it has historically should the nation be successful in its efforts at modernisation of industry.
Rather than welcoming the Edwards initiative, however, which closely resembles plans floated in Europe, Iranian authorities were unmoved, branding the offer as mere campaign rhetoric.
According to an AFP story headlined in Turkish Press, foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters that: "These kind of comments are mostly campaigning, and you cannot accurately assess and appraise these comments. We have to see which candidate gets elected and then see their policies in practice. This is campaigning and nothing new."
New Zealand has been actively courting Iran on the trade front recently but has cautioned the state that it stands strongly against nuclear proliferation.
...and I should add, no belief in America's capacity to right itself after 9-11 and fight back.
I don't consider Iranians as a Terrorist nation. You might hate them but I don't.
Well, they rejected it. What say you now, Breck Boy?
The Iranian govt is bad not the people!
Kerry will offer another deal
We are waiting Mssrs. Kerry & Edwards for your concession that President Bush has been right on this issue.
However, I will not be holding my breath . . .
An excellent example of what a Kerry administration would do. Although, our European friends would not stand with us, the would cower in fear with the Kerry administation.
The way to engage Iran is simple. 1.) Iran, dismantle your nuclear plants and weapons programs. You have two months. 2.) If you don't, we will do it for you. Don't expect us to rebuild your country either.
Many expected us to leave Germany and Japan after WWII, so if we invade some where, we'll have to rebuild it too. Remember that! ;-)
John F'n Kerry is a jerk!
The so-called "journalists", "academicians", "celebrities", et al., who are urging us to do this are scarier than he is.
And for a moron like this to be a serious candidate for the Presidency of the United States is the scariest and most profoundly distubing thing of all.
Amazing. Just a couple weeks ago, Iran itself floated the Kerry proposal. Then Kerry agrees to it, and they retract it. Kerry seems to be digging a deeper hole.
sounds like Jimmy Carter2--he got us the N korea DEAL!
If not, these guys have a lotta nerve acting unilaterally.
Anyday, Euro-leaders will be calling for the public heinie-spanking of the two Socialist Democrat candidates.
I was not clear in my post. I'm not advocating the invasion of Iran. My thought process is a bit closer to the destruction of Iran - not the people per se, but the government, military and weapons programs. That may or may not require soldiers on the ground.
With that said, there is a difference between the people that live in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. than the people who lived in Germany, Italy, and Japan at the end of WWII. The people of the axis powers were following their leaders. Through the invasion and replacement of the leadership of the axis powers we were able to set those nations on a path of peace.
There is a different problem that exists in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. We have a situation where a religion, Islam, is the source of the problem. And in some cases, Islam has embodied governments - Iran and Afghanistan. The on-going problems in Iraq are not the result of a people following a leader, but a people following a religion. Things will not change in these nations by changing governments. Islam is the constant that will exist no matter how many times a government is changed. This also means that terrorism will exist no matter how many times governments are changed and how many times we rebuild countries.
So I now stick out my neck and write something very unpopular: we are wasting our tax dollars in Iraq by rebuilding Iraq. I have zero confidence that a Muslim people will be able to exist in the modern world and not produce more terrorism. However, I am confident that Iraq will not be producing weapons of mass destruction that can be used by terrorists.
How can I be confident that Iran is not producing WMD's? When Iran is destroyed. How can I be confident that Iran is not aiding terrorism? When Iran is destroyed. Rebuilding Iran would only allows a Muslim people to more rapidly meet their goal of destroying the West.
The best policy would be to destroy these governments, their militaries, their weapons programs and infrastructure. We should confiscate their riches to help pay for our military. We should confiscate their oil to insure stability in our economy. When these people are properly placed in poverty they will not have the means to export terrorism. That is the long term solution to the terrorism problem. Poverty, not prosperity. Rebuilding leads to prosperity - theirs, not ours.
The "atomic ayatollahs", like SH, the Taleban, and AQ do watch US television... Anyone who is, or is trying to be "a player" on the world scene does. They know Kerry/Edwards ain't going nowhere (let alone to 1600 Pa Ave...)
the infowarrior
ping
Jeeezzz-- These 2 bozos cannot even convince the mullahs of Iran to believe in them. What a laugh.
Amazing, isn't it?
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.