Bush backs Russian nuclear plan for Iran

Reuters ^ | Jan 26, 2006 12:56 PM ET

[maquiladora]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Thursday backed a Russian proposal to resolve a nuclear stalemate with Tehran and said the United States supported democratic reformers in Iran.

Bush laid out conditions for an "acceptable alternative" for Iran.

"That the material used to power the plant would be manufactured in Russia, delivered under IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors to Iran, to be used in that plant, the waste of which will be picked up by the Russians and returned to Russia."

"I think that is a good plan," he said. "The Russians came up with the idea and I support it."

[CarrotAndStick]

Ping!

[RexBeach]

Oy. He really believes this is what's going to happen?

President Bush, you're joking, right?

[moose2004]

I don't know anything about nuclear power, is this a safe option for the West?

[GOP_Party_Animal]

How much will Kojo Annan make from this deal?

[Lunatic Fringe]

He floats it as a trial balloon, knowing the Iranians will reject it.

[PAR35]

He really believes this is what's going to happen?

Of course not. But it takes the Russians off the table when the US acts. 'We backed the Russian plan. We are on their side. It is the Iranians who are unreasonable. That's why we had to nuke them.' At this point, the only friends the Iranians will have will be the French.

[LIConFem]

"I don't know anything about nuclear power, is this a safe option for the West?"

It's hard to imagine anything being run by Russia and the U.N. being "safe" for the west (or for the U.S.).

[FMBass]

"He floats it as a trial balloon, knowing the Iranians will reject it."


It seems after reading an article posted on FR all I have to do is scroll down a few posts to find what I was about to type!

[Rutles4Ever]

Exactly. The Iranians have to reject it. They're not interested in enriching uranium for energy purposes. The Russians get to feel like they're doing something constructive to head this off, and the President can have Iran essentially admit it's not trying to supplant its energy supplies, but build nuclear weapons.

[moose2004]

Makes sense, I agree.

[FreedomNeocon]

Doesn't matter, will never happen.

Its just another way to demonstrate to the squishy europeans how unreasonable Iran is on the issue.

[rwfromkansas]

I don't think you realize how difficult a war with Iran would be.

If he has to do it, Bush will do it, but he clearly wants to exhaust every other remedy possible.

[rwfromkansas]

Iran will respond by saying they are a sovereign country and will not be dependent upon another country, not even a friendly country. They will reject the offer.

[oolatec]

moose... just so you know, this is the same kind of plan that the Clinton Administration came up to "resolve" the North Korean issue...

[RexBeach]

Thanks for your note.

[humint]

It's a good plan but the Iranian government would have to backtrack a long way to execute the Russian plan. But it's important to realize that backtracking now, after making so many threats, will not let the Iranian government off the hook. They've forced the free world's hand in such a public and belligerent way that the American mission has become global stability through democratization. Iran is high on our President's "TO DO" list.

ARTICLE: Spreading democracy and freedom, especially in Muslim countries, is high on Bush's foreign policy agenda. It has been criticized by some as a misguided attempt to impose U.S. values and political beliefs.

If any person has had the pleasure to experience the diversity of lifestyles, cultures and opinions of these United States, they would know immediately that it would be physically impossible to impose American political beliefs on anyone. In fact, American values are clearly opposed to restrictions on political beliefs. How is an American foreign policy engineered to foster global stability on the premise of respect for individual rights misguided? This is a totally rhetorical question... From your previous posts you've implied, that although American foreign policy may at times be unbalanced, it is by no means misguided.

[trebb]

I doubt he really believes that it will happen, but he is also expected to lend credence to diplomacy. Of course, his detractors will castigate him if he eschews diplomacy when urgency dictates action, or if he "outsources" diplomacy, or even if he explores all possible forms of diplomacy. He can't win with the Dims or the media either way, but he wins with himself and with rational people by turning over the stones as they crop up. When all is said and done, he will do the best he can as the situation continues to develop, and he'll do it for the right reasons.

[CarrotAndStick]

My previous post as in the one on China? That's because someone implied India would somehow "ally" with China, notwithstanding the all-present border dispute, and the overall significantly great threat China poses to India, by way of its might, its assistance to Pakistan, and its incompatible political system. India's relationship with America is at a much higher priority in Indian political circles (barring the Left parties) than its priorities vis-a-vis China.

[GarySpFc]

moose... just so you know, this is the same kind of plan that the Clinton Administration came up to "resolve" the North Korean issue...

And it is esentially the same plan the EU offered Iran. Everyone has been screaming about the Russians giving Iran nuclear weapons. Iran already has 3 research reactors, and is building a "heavy water" reactor at Arak. The latter is a major problem, because you can make weapons with a heavy water reactor. The Russian "light water" reactor can be used to make weapons, but it is very, very difficult, and the Iranians are not going to have that capability for many years. Having the Russians process the fuel avoids the threat.