Posted on 05/05/2008 1:19:05 PM PDT by freerepublic_or_die
World powers very soon will present Iran with a revised package of incentives to give up its sensitive nuclear work, U.S. officials said on Monday, but expectations for a positive response are low.
"I think this will move very quickly," said a senior U.S. official, when asked when the incentives package agreed on by major powers in London last Friday would be formally offered to the Iranians.
Top government officials in China, Russia, the United States, France, Britain -- the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- and Germany are now reviewing the decision made in London and an approach would be made soon to Tehran, the official said. France has said it could be within days.
The incentives are based on an offer first made to Iran in June 2006, which diplomats say has been "refreshed" to include enhanced nuclear cooperation but do not differ substantially from the first one.
"It is not a major step forward, frankly, because we think it was a very good offer in the first place. We simply don't understand why the Iranians have not put more interest in it," the senior U.S. official told Reuters.
"It doesn't augur well for a reaction, given what they have said already," he added, anticipating Iran's formal response.
Iran said on Monday it would not consider any incentives that violated its right to nuclear technology, ruling out a precondition to halt atomic work the West believes is aimed at making bombs. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful power purposes.
"It is nice to see, I guess, that they are keeping such an open mind about this by rejecting it before they have even seen it," said State Department spokesman Tom Casey when asked about Iran's comments
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
Yes, INCENTIVES preferable to INCINERATION by INFIDELS.
This administration seems to be doing about as well handling Iran as it is North Korea.
Condi Rice is the most stupid intelligent person around.
SO, lets send more aid to both these countries? Hell no, send them cruise missiles nuclear armed and send them a real message that America isn’t a paper pussy.
...diplomats -- whose job is to negotiate settlements short of war...
My worry is,...negotiate at what cost?
Pardon my cynicism. But I've seen this scenario before. North Korea ended up with nuclear reactors to avoid a confrontation. And we all see how that worked out.
Mine, too. It all depends on who is president at the time things begin to get really interesting.
Which is why the stakes for this presidential election are probably higher than they've been since 1980.
Of the three candidates, McCain is the only one who has a reasonable likelihood of handling this situation with the seriousness it deserves.
Of the two Democrats, Hillary! would be a far better choice than Obama. Not for any good and serious reasons; rather, she would be forced to take an aggressive stance simply to prove that being a woman is not an obstacle to protecting our interests. She'd do a terrible job as Commander in Chief, but with regard to Iran the requirements of her personal ambitions would be in roughly the same direction as what is needed to deal with Iran.
Obama, of course, would be an utter disaster. I have no sense that he would do anything other than out-Carter Carter -- senseless and counter-productive negotiations and sell-outs of allies in the name of "peace." The only reason Jimmuh was not fully our Neville chamberlain was because there were still enough Scoop Jackson Democrats to keep an eye on the threats. Obama would have no such luxury to fall back on: he'd simply give in, and Pelosi and Reid would support him -- until the Iranian threat became so great that our only choice would be to engage them in a truly expensive war.
We’re making them an offer they can’t refuse. We shouldn’t bother, they will simply agree citing hudna (temporary truce) under Islamic law. Then, they will continue building nukes like North Korea did. But unlike North Korea that “startled the world” with there nuclear test, Iran will attack Israel. Israel will win but the West as a whole loses economically and the puppeteer Russia is going to be most pleased.
I tend to agree with your post.
McCain will stand a better chance of keeping things from getting completely out of control when (not if) the feces hits the propeller.
“...the best incentive would be a ring of steel (US and British Navy ships)....”
The Royal Navy is not the powerful force it was in the past. Today’s Royal Navy is but a sad shadow of its once awesome self. The Royal Navy is fast becoming a coast guard force rather than the all-reaching blue water dynamo it once was.
Incentive: you blow up Natanz or we will do it for you.
I agree...and hesitate to say out loud what has run through my head for some time now...
you don't suppose that Bush's delay in bringing the Iran situation to a head is to time it so that it is abundantly clear what you suggest is true...just about election time?
He very well could have done so. As a matter of war strategy, the winner of this election is of crucial importance.
I tend to think not, though. Sometimes things just take a long time.
That's the detestable part - action based on political motives and timing, while our Forces are taking-fire from an obvious enemy.
We need more 'Patton', and less 'Powell' ............. FRegards
As I said above, I doubt that Bush is delaying action on Iran for reasons related to the presidential race.
OTOH, suppose he is: given that the Iran problem will most likely come to a head during the next administration, isn't it a matter of war strategy to ensure that the best person running, is in office when it happens?
Not that I think that's what's going on -- but if it is, it's far from "detestable." In fact, it would be a damned good thing!
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.
