A touch of spine from the Mixed Signals Administration. "US refuses to rule out attacks," from the TimesOnline, with thanks to JE:
America has refused to give Iran guarantees that it will not use military force against its nuclear sites, according to a leading US official...John Bolton, the US envoy to the UN, said that incentives offered to Iran this week in return for suspending its uranium enrichment work did not include military commitments. President Bush has insisted on keeping “all options open” in dealing with Iran, which many suspect is secretly building an atomic weapon under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme.
Javier Solana, the EU’s foreign policy chief, delivered a package of incentives agreed by America, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. The US has also agreed to resume official talks with Tehran for the first time in a quarter of a century.
Blow hot, blow cold, seems to be the policy.
Do you mean that policy from the blowhards arjun?
May the blows be hot and the persian winds be cold.
Looks like someone may have discovered a Y chromosome
The US will not attack Itanian atomic sites if my theory is correct.
Further, the US will either overtly or covertly prevent anybody else from attacking Iranian nuke sites as well, at least not for the next 6-12 months.
Let us wait and see.
CD Baric
Many have been dismayed at the offer that Bush gave to Iran, most realized that Iranians do not want to stop at nuclear power for electricity, but want to produce nuclear arms. by keeping the options out for military consequences, the world can see that Iran truly wants war. l just hope when they bomb iran that its done decisively and quickly.
Why gurantee Iran anything at all? Or any Islamic regime? You cant trust Allah, or his Sons, to abide by any guarantee you might give them. They will violate your guarantee in submission to Mohammad, who violated lots of guarantees. While they are stalling around, they are working feverously for completion, and may have already done so. Bush is right to give them no guarantee's....
Javier Solana, the EU’s foreign policy chief, delivered a package of incentives
Javier Solana?
Since when was Solana elected by the American people to represent their interests?
Why is Solana doing what the Congress should be doing on behalf of the United States?
Frankly, I don't give a [ copious, angry, and VERY obscene expletives deleted ] what Solana thinks about anything!
I'd like to see some spine from our Congress for a change -- maybe they should review some of the old "Victory at Sea" beginnig episodes to get a overview of what their jobs entail besides golf outtings!
The problem is how to eliminate the Iranian nuclear capability in such a manner that doing so will not turn the Iranian people, especially the students and people of higher education, against the West. What needs to be done is to limit their nuclear development and give the people in Iran who are pro-West and anti-fundamentalist a chance to sieze control of the government. A difficult task since the Iranian government is tied in with the ruling mullahs who also control the Iranian Army. We need not to just destroy their facilities, but to take out these radical, fundamentalist religious leaders too. However, if it appears Iran is moving too quickly to having full nuclear capability as well as a means of long range delivery for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as Saddam was when he was readying his Osirak reactor, drastic measures will have to be done by the West regardless of the consequences, and let the chips fall where they may. I'll bet donuts to dollars we already have their main sites targeted.
Bohemond_1069 writes: "The problem is how to eliminate the Iranian nuclear capability in such a manner that doing so will not turn the Iranian people, especially the students and people of higher education, against the West."
I don't think that's possible anymore, due to the hypocritical stand the West has taken in recent years on nuclear non-proliferation: North Korea seemed to have nukes, so the U.S. negotiated with it; Iraq seemed not to have nukes (yet), so the U.S. invaded it; India has had nukes for 25 years, and in all that time no one has insisted that India disarm their nukes.
The lesson is clear, for any Third World country, regardless of the nature of the regime running it: Nuclear weapons bring you the respect of the world and deters the world community from threatening force against you. So even if reformers took control of the Iranian government, why shouldn't they continue to pursue nuclear weapons anyway? After all, India has been a democracy for ages, never an Islamic fundamentalist regime; yet they have had nuclear weapons since 1980.
why shouldn't they continue to pursue nuclear weapons anyway?.....um....cause the dude is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.Plus,besides all that we need some pay back for him holding the hostages.
Steven ...I think the point here is that any Nuclear armed islamic theocracy is capable of totally irrational responses to issues(eg cartoons) which no one(even North Korea) would even notice and via the fatalistic jihad ideal is quite capable of taking us all to Armageddon happily. Never underestimate the sacrificial tendencies of jihadists.
Pakistan has its nukes purely for balance with india and fanatical scientists aside both have been sensible with what they have. Even NK would think twice about dropping some and upsetting China.
The excuse for Iran is that Israel has them but israel would only ever use them as a last resort in the event of being overrrun and it is this possibility which Iran wishes to eliminate as part of its jihad versus israel which it will never cease. Once Israel's nukes are balanced then their threat is diminished and conventional parity is back on the line and with the PC euro attitude and the US's hands full already the next conventional war could be lost by Israel.
A jihadic Islamic theocracy or lunatocracy is too much of a wild card for secure civilisation.
"A touch of spine from the Mixed Signals Administration."
This is wonderful satire, or is it sarcasm? Whatever it is, it really skewers this admin. I love the way articles are introduced here.
Steven, none of the countries you mentioned have a means of delivering a nuclear payload over a long distance. Iran either has that capability or is developing it. If they can hit Israel, they can hit parts of Europe too. Therein lies the difference and the danger. The North Koreans have painted themselves into a corner. If they ever use a nuke against one of their neighbors they will be completely destroyed. Their biggest ally is China, and China sin't about to let the NK's destabilize their part of the world. Lots of Iranians (and I know a few) hate the country's leaders and the mullahs that control the government and the military. They want to change things but are powerless to do so now.
With the diplomatic overture to Iran, and other administration actions that've made the base livid with GW, this statement may have only been made to placate the base.
If the US does not disarm Iran, then it will have allowed itself to enter into another cold war. Just when it got out of one, it now is allowing another nation to assume the role of the Soviets. Bush is an idiot for this alone. If Iran gets the bomb, and the missiles to deliver it, then we will have to give them the same respect and fear we gave the Russians for 40 years. That is nauseating.
Will Israel allow it? It looks that way. Nobody in the west has a stomach for war. Except islam. That is a bad dynamic.
Steven,
Western countries do not describe their nu. tech. as "Christian bombs". India does not describe its bombs as "Hindu bomb". pakistan calls it "islamic bomb". The prince of saudi arabia has on more than one occasion toured the pakistani nuclear facilities. And you know that pak. got this bomb when a.q. khan stole technology from the West, and the rest was provided by China to destabilise India/
Bohemond,
"Steven, none of the countries you mentioned have a means of delivering a nuclear payload over a long distance"
Yes, we do have the means. But, like I mentioned in my post above, nu. tech. in the hands of islam is to be proliferated to all islamic countries. That is why pak. helped iran with its nu. tech. India has never helped other countries get nu. or missile tech.
Many countries may have nuclear weapons but the problem is, as someone else said, if Iran or other Muslim psychos get nuclear weapons, it would be extremely dangerous because they are totally irrational. These are people who would happily blow themselves up so they could go to paradise and be serviced by 72 virgins so it's very scary if they ever get nukes.