IRAN-Deja vu all over again?

by JWdaughter 318 Replies latest social current

  • leavingwt

    Iran Ready to Resolve Dispute Over Nuclear Program, with Conditions

    Iran is ready for "effective cooperation" to resolve the dispute over its nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview with state media.

    "We said that we will talk with P5+1 as of early September, but there are some conditions," Ahmadinejad told Press TV on Monday. "One of the conditions is that others should be present in the discussions as well."

    The P5+1 consists of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, France and United Kingdom -- and Germany.

    The Iranian leader said the conditions for talks include the P5+1 members announcing their positions on Israel having nuclear weapons. Jerusalem has neither confirmed nor denied that it has a nuclear weapons program.

    "With respect to the negotiations, they should announce whether they are after friendship or animosity. They should come and tell us if the aim of the talks is friendship or animosity." Ahmadinejad said. "And they should announce whether they follow logic or force and resolutions in the negotiations."

    Tehran has been hit with a string of sanctions from the Security Council and the European Union for not cooperating on its nuclear program.

    Ahmadinejad's interview came on the same day Iran submitted a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency, proposing to restart limited talks on an exchange of nuclear fuel.

    Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told the official Islamic Republic News Agency Monday that the letter indicated that Iran was ready to start talks.

    . . .

  • JWoods

    Maybe they realize that Israel has just about had it with them?

  • freydo

    "If America does not respond, Iran wins the battle of Afghanistan. If America does respond — well, since neither the Bush nor the Obama administration responded to Iran’s interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past, there is no basis to imagine a policy change once Iran’s rulers have their fingers on nuclear triggers......."

    Imagine a Nuclear Iran

    It’s easy if you try.

    JULY 22, 2010

    "It’s been said that a diplomat is a gentleman paid to go abroad and lie for his country. Sometimes, however, diplomats slip up and tell the truth. In response to a question at the hopefully named Aspen Ideas Festival this month, Yousef al-Otaiba, the ambassador from the United Arab Emirates, said bluntly: “We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.”

    Al-Otaiba went on to add that, if sanctions fail to stop Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons, military force will be the only option left and it should not be ruled out. “A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster,” he said. “But Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster.”

    Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed, director-general of Al-Arabiya TV, followed with an article for the English-language edition of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, in which he not only agreed with the ambassador, he declared the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran “the most dangerous threat that is facing our region in a hundred years.” He called upon readers to “imagine what Tehran will do when it has nuclear capabilities!”

    Al-Rashed then did a little imagining himself: Iran, he said, would soon “dominate . . . and perhaps take over” the Gulf states, the small, wealthy Arab countries so tantalizingly close to its borders.

    Such an anschluss would not require tanks or troop deployments..................."

  • llbh

    Interesting post Freydo, it would also helpful if you gave a little insight on why you cut and pasted that particular quote, and whether you have an opinion on it.

    The UAE is predominantly Sunni and Iran is predominantly?? you guessed it ( well I hope you did) Shia.Now which country borders The Emirates?? well the democratic republic is of The House Saud, and as you know, they are ... yep, Sunni, and an ever so slightly repressive form, Wahabiism. I trust now you see where I am going with this, could it be Mr al - Oteiba has an ax to grind??


  • sacolton

    So nothing is going to be done with Iran until it's too late?

  • JWoods
    So nothing is going to be done with Iran until it's too late?

    Probably. Ironic to remember that about five years ago, on this board, many people were in total denial that Iran was working to get an atomic bomb, and insisted that Bush was antagonizing them because he was a rednecked idiot. Anybody still think Iran has no intentions of building a nuclear weapon now?

  • llbh

    No one is saying that Iran is not trying to gain Nuclear weapons, just what response, if any is appropriate. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to well either.


  • quietlyleaving

    where are wikileaks when you need them? They don't seem to notice the big ones

  • JWoods
    where are wikileaks when you need them?

    If there is not a way to damage the U.S. war effort, there is no interest from wikileaks.

    No one is saying that Iran is not trying to gain Nuclear weapons, just what response, if any is appropriate. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to well either.

    Not now, of course. But years ago, back on the old board, the poster Hillary Step argued with me for weeks that Iran was a peaceful nation, had every right to enrich uranium, and had no intent of making a bomb or harming Israel.

    It is important to remember that much of what goes wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan is at the hands of Iran.

    But nothing except talk is going to take place (as far as the U.S. is concerned) about Iran - Obama does not have the political capital or the will to do anything. So, that leaves it up to Israel - who is probably not capable of making an effective strike against Iran on its own.

  • BurnTheShips

    Several Arab nations have already made it quietly clear that an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites would be welcome.


Share this