US may cede to Iran’s nuclear ambition(allowing enrichment?)

FT ^ | 04/03/09 | Daniel Dombey

[TigerLikesRooster]

US may cede to Iran’s nuclear ambition

By Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: April 3 2009 17:29 | Last updated: April 3 2009 17:29

US officials are considering whether to accept Iran’s pursuit of uranium enrichment, which has been outlawed by the United Nations and remains at the heart of fears that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability.

As part of a policy review commissioned by President Barack Obama, diplomats are discussing whether the US will eventually have to accept Iran’s insistence on carrying out the process, which can produce both nuclear fuel and weapons- grade material.

“There’s a fundamental impasse between the western demand for no enrichment and the Iranian dem­and to continue enrichment,” says Mark Fitzpat­rick, a former state depart­- ­­ment expert now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “There’s no obvious compromise bet­ween those two positions.”

[TigerLikesRooster]

So this is what Zero's foreign policy turns out to be. Not that it surprises me.

Normalizing relations with Cuba, letting Iran have enriched uranium, begging China for money, doing nothing on N. Korea.

And go full throttle about dumping tax payers money to save Wall St. fascist oligarchs disguising as free market champions.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Ping!

[Nachum]

The List, ping

[neodad]

And outsourcing the dirty work to Isreal. Well, they’ll do it.

[rdl6989]

Soetoro strikes again.

[KoRn]

If this happens, Israel may have no choice other than to immediately strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

[TigerLikesRooster]

And would never fail to impose sanction on Israel after the Iran strike.

[TigerLikesRooster]

In a way, Zero is unwittingly sending a ‘go-signal’ to Israel.

[Rembrandt]

I have trouble envisioning today’s crop of tatooed, chubby “patriots” getting up their war fever and enlisting to defend against the scourge of whirling dervishes after Iran detonates a nuke in the U.S.

I think we’re screwed.

Thanks, zero.

[R0CK3T]

The man is insane if he allows the Iranians to evolve nuclear weapons.

So what - when they use them on the US ( and there is virtually NO doubt that they will) what’s he going to say...

“well if we weren’t such a despotically hated country because we have had conservative Presidents, then they wouldn’t have wanted to kill us in the first place”.

[Tzimisce]

Thank god Iran is a trustworthy pacifist state or I’d be worried. :)

[fso301]

Where are the environmentalists?

If Iran wants nuclear energy for electricity production, why not buy them all the windmills and solar collectors necessary to meet their needs?

[piytar]

So the Son of Perdition who bowed to the King of the nation that includes Mecca is willing to allow the most radical islamist state to have nukes? Anyone shocked by this is a moron.

[aquila48]

“And outsourcing the dirty work to Isreal. Well, they’ll do it.”

You may want to read this...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2223950/posts

[LifeComesFirst]

I’m guessing that Obama would be opposed to AMERICAN nuclear power, but Iranian “nuclear power” nudge nudge wink wink is a-okay with him.

[Rick_Michael]

As much as I want to think no man would take those positions, I feel he’s going to do that exact thing. Sad, really.

Hopefully it won’t end-up a blood bath.

[nuconvert]

“There’s a fundamental impasse between the western demand for no enrichment and the Iranian dem­and to continue enrichment,” says Mark Fitzpat­rick, a former state depart­- ­­ment expert now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “There’s no obvious compromise bet­ween those two positions.””

There is NO compromise, obvious or otherwise on the Iranian regime’s part to have nuclear weapons.

[Kakaze]

Obama, is simply “The Enemy Within”.

[jwparkerjr]

And don't forget to list the sudden upsurge of piracy now that Obama has told, and is in the process of showing, the world that we are all talk and no walk.

We're back to the days when the pirates seize ships, practically at will, and demand a ransom be paid to release them unharmed.

Until, and unless, we make an example of how we plan to ACT to protect our interests we can plan on an increasing number of hostile acts directed at us.

It's just like dealing with children. Sooner or later you have to stop talking to them and start doing to them. And it really doesn't matter WHAT you do as much as the fact they come to know their will be a price to be paid for misbehavior. It's not the severity of the response as much as the certainty and swiftness that gets their attention.

That's been my beef with our handling of Iran for years and years. They have never been made to pay a price for messing with us. And by paying I mean paying in the coin of the realm, in their case being publicly humiliated in the eyes of countries who delight in seeing them mess with us.