| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran hails UN nuclear 'victory' |
| 2004-11-30 |
| There are none so blind as those who will not see... A top Iranian official has claimed a "great victory" over the US after the UN said it would not punish Iran's nuclear activities with sanctions. Hassan Rohani said Iran would never give up its right to nuclear power. He stressed its freeze in uranium enrichment was only temporary during talks with European countries. Hey! It's like it's 1938/39 all over again! That's an excellent Chamberlain impression you've got going there, Jack. The UN atomic agency IAEA has welcomed Iran's offer to freeze enrichment in a statement on Monday that did not mention any threat of future sanctions. Washington had been pushing for Iran to be censured by the UN Security Council. Mr Rohani said the "whole world had turned down America's calls". "We have proved that, in an international institution, we are capable of isolating the US. And that is a great victory," Mr Rohani said. He added that the US representative at the IAEA meeting in Vienna "was enraged and in tears, and everybody said that the Americans had failed and we had won". "[Sniff] And we couldn't have done it without France. Thanks France! And Germany - we owe you sooo much, Germany! We love you! And Britain! Who'd have thought we could count on you to help us out in our time of need? You three have been rocks!" It was Iran's first direct comment on the nuclear controversy since the IAEA resolution on Monday. According to Mr Rohani, Iran's offer to suspend uranium enrichment would only apply for the duration of talks with the EU. "We are talking months, not years," the cleric and head of Iran's top security body said. Officials from the UK, Germany and France are trying "And in addition to confirming that our new technologies and installations which could be used for military purposes, won't be, absolutely not, no, we can reassure you that we have no territorial ambitions beyond reunification of the Sudetenland with - oops! Wrong notes!" Talks between the Europeans and the Iranians are due to resume on 15 December. Mr Rohani said "the length of negotiations must be rational and not too long". But, he added, the talks were a "historical opportunity for Iran and Europe to prove to the world that unilateralism is condemned". Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is solely for peaceful purposes and rejects accusations that it is working towards technology which could eventually be used for the production of nuclear weapons. US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Iran had repeatedly broken promises over its nuclear activities in the past 18 months. Tehran stepped back from a similar offer to freeze uranium enrichment six months ago, sparking the current round of negotiations over its atomic ambitions. |
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #40 It's great isn't it - the way it's ok for the US and Israel to have nukes, but not anyone else? From all the comments above, is it any wonder the Iranians and other nations don't like the US? |
| Posted by: Anon5607 2004-11-30 11:49:18 PM |
| #39 Lol! Now you've really pissed me off - comparing Dubya to LBJ? LOL! Oil and water - ignore the accent. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-30 2:38:52 PM |
| #38 I predict we are going to see a lot of history in a short period and the world will look substantially different as early as the end of 2005. I think Bush will do something about Iran. As .com points out he has said so very explicitly. I don't know what it will be, but I'm certain it won't involve a long drawn out UNSC process. A couple of hundred of those nifty mini-cruise missiles could make a real mess of your electricity distribution system (for example). |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-11-30 2:37:01 PM |
| #37 In the press conference in progress with Kanadian PM Martin, Bush just said it again in his jocular style that "it would be best if Iran did not have a nucular [sic] weapon." Though there was some jesting going on, he was clear enough that the PM Martin has a clear vision of what he believes should be done and that the E3 have invested a hell of a lot of hours in negotiating a freeze of their program. The US believes they should terminate the program. Caving? This is Bush. When he smiles, you'd better watch yer ass, bub. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-30 2:36:36 PM |
| #36 Have you acquired a case of Gloom & Doom Disease? No, just a vivid memory of LBJ's overstretch. He tried to escalate the Vietnam War while also launching the most ambitious domestic reform agenda since the New Deal, and he failed miserably for the simple reason that, contrary to the old Michelob ads, You can't have it all. The biggest problem here is that we simply cannot put much faith in the intelligence we're getting from an incompetent, if not actively compromised, CIA. Without good intel no US overthrow or direct strike action will succeed. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-30 2:32:24 PM |
| #35 Overlapped you, Mrs D. Same to you. Share the reasons for pessimism if you have them. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-30 2:26:17 PM |
| #34 Sigh. Well, in answering JM, my point was that he has to expend NO capital to get the US Congress onboard - they already are. Too much on his plate? Pfeh. You knock 'em down as they pop up - that's his style. He's surrounded by a core of people who are not stressed out and have served him damned well, for the most part. Bush has already demonstrated some damned amazing things in 4 years - or 3 yrs, rather - think of all he's changed in 3 years and tell me he can't do what he's setting out to do... 3 yrs of extraordinary activity, historic policy-making, bold pre-emptive actions, and remarkably bold initiatives. He hasn't shirked anything - and shown he will go it alone, after checking off the boxes, whenever it is required. US interests are what he keeps in focus. That's what I respect about him. He certainly doesn't look like he's slowing down nor have I seen any of the indications you see he's caving on anything - anything at all. If you insist upon saying that's the case, maybe you should pony-up the links. I have. Have you acquired a case of Gloom & Doom Disease? Where the hell did that come from? Lotsa shit happening, sure, but I see no reason to lose faith without solid evidence - and if you have that, please share it. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-30 2:23:46 PM |
| #33 Good job, Lex. We'd all love to see it happen, but it isn't going to. Three year old empty taunts aren't going to make Bush do anything he doesn't think is in the US national interest. If Israel is going to do something, and I don't doubt they might, it'll probably have to be a near suicide mission given the geography. Bless ém if they do. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-11-30 2:17:44 PM |
| #32 I'm a realist, not a pessimist. I would love nothing more than to see a full-court press against the mullahs with an eye toward their overthrow within 18 months. But I simply don't see the prerequisites for such in place: No real assets on the ground, and a distracted CIA to boot. No willingness on the part of the Dwarves to countenance real sanctions and/or a blockade. Finally, Bush has announced the most ambitious goals for his second term that we've seen since the Great Society: reforming Social Security and the tax code. Does his admin have the bandwidth, let alone the capital, to manage these enormous overhauls and Iraq and strikes on Iran? |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-30 2:03:27 PM |
| #31 "...and the Iranians ain't stupid." I dunno about that. The Taliban were stupid. Saddam was stupid. I can't think of any reason to believe the Iranians aren't just as stupid, and plenty of reason to believe they're even more stupid: these are Shiite fanatics who have a large part of their pride invested in thumbing their noses at the Great Satan, dating all the way back to November 4, 1979. Their creed seems to be, We exist, therefore we must taunt. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-11-30 2:02:09 PM |
| #30 JM - It's House Res 398 (there are several forms - all designated H.Con.398xx - with the xx varying according to the author. The status says the Senate committee agreed to it, with some trivial (typical Senate) change to the title and has "messaged" back to the House... lex - your point is fully contained in my comment #21 and you've voiced the same negativism before (comment #11 - "any amount"), then withdrawn it (sorry, you said a gentleman could change his mind, so I saw no need to save a bookmark, since you're a gentleman), and now reiterated it. Cool. I get it, you're pessimistic. Fine. We shall see, eh? |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-30 1:55:28 PM |
| #29 Good thread. One point I'm kind of curious about is why the Iranians (or at least Rohani) would be publicly rubbing Bush's face in this. Annoying George Bush tends to have fatal consequences, and the Iranians ain't stupid. Other than the obvious (it feels good) the two motives I can think of are (1) appeasing the hardliners in Iran who I assume did not want this deal and (2) telling the reformists in Iran that the EU supports the regime. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-11-30 1:49:22 PM |
| #28 Another reason Bush will cave is that our incompetent CIA clowns do not have good assets on the ground in Iran. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-30 1:33:40 PM |
| #27 Regards the debate, note in this old article that the House has already approved "all appropriate means" to stop Iran's nuke pgm. The last time I looked, it was stalled in the Senate (intel Cmte, IIRC) - I don't recall the SR #, sorry - and that was pre-election. I'll bet it gets new impetus, now. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-30 1:25:32 PM |
| #26 That smoking gun link you provided .com is damning and should give everyone an idea of whats being faced here. But I believe that once Iran has verifiable nuclear ability, the US will not strike unless we get hit first. No amount of political capital earned would cover the cost of a nuke going off if we miss one. There is a short window of maybe a year or 2 at the outset to get something done and I just don't see it. There isn't any diplomatic solution to this but the Euro's and the UN and the fifth column in this country will be up in arms if this isn't debated before the world ad nauseum. A suprise strike would set off a firestorm in Europe and here. I don't know what will happen, but I think our bolt has been shot. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-11-30 1:19:39 PM |
| #25 From your mouth to God's ear, EoZ. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-11-30 1:04:15 PM |
| #24 Amen, EoZ. Here's the smoking gun that demands pre-emptive action. And here's a spoonful of sugar for the Dhimmigogues who complain. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-30 12:55:30 PM |
| #23 Hey Ho, just a minute everybody. You are all forgetting one very important fact. Dubia or no Dubia (and I personally tend to trust he knows what he's doing and he means what he says), The state of Israel cannot afford even a single Iranian nuke prototype ! While the USA can take the loss of a couple of cities and survive, a single well placed nuke in Tel Aviv will devastate us beyond repair. I therefore predict that it would be very logical to expect some large scale "Candy coating/accidents/ end candy coating" to occur at Natanz or other similar sites. |
| Posted by: Elder of Zion 2004-11-30 12:45:35 PM |
| #22 BAR has hit on the strategy. Unfortunately, it was adopted too late. Iran is too close to their bomb and the CIA has to clean house before it can do anything helpful. State still thinks Iran is the most democratic country in the ME, except for that shitty little one, and it's not clear Rice wants to or can clean the sewerage out. Maybe they could send Goss to Foggy Bottom if he cleanses Langley well and then Rice could run for DiFi's seat or the Governator's if he steps down in '06. Unfortunately, I think the Governator is having way too much fun, to the delight of all resoanable Caliphornians. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-11-30 12:27:26 PM |
| #21 "The other option" I suggest a combination is in order - and will occur if time permits. I believe that George Tenet and the other slackers / seditionists in the CIA may have made one of the greatest blunders in history in this regard. If there is insufficient time to develop the links and coordinate with the disaffected Persian populace, then they have, indeed, set us up and failed us beyond what mere words can express... I believe that, without this collaboration and given the present circumstances, it will be a "close run" thing to de-nuke / topple / whatever. Time. It's all about time. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-30 12:22:38 PM |
| #20 The only thing I find surprising here is that it seems most have "given up" that any military action will be taken against Iran. The other option is that unrest from within, and fanned with outright American public support and clandestine material help, would cause the Persians to take care of the Mullah Problem themselves. Our forces took Afghanistan, then Iraq. They need a little rest. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-11-30 12:16:55 PM |
| #19 You're still working - so you can replace $10K. I'm "retired" so it would hurt a LOT more - as things stand now, anyway. Let's wait and see what happens. Then you can do the "I told you so", if inclined. I'll pass if it goes the other way - I'll be too busy ululating, heh. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-30 12:09:20 PM |
| #18 words, words, words |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-30 12:07:08 PM |
| #17 Studly, indeed! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-30 12:04:19 PM |
| #16 I'll bet any sum up to $10k that Bush caves. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-30 12:03:19 PM |
| #15 I won't be pissy and demand links, but I note the studly stances scoffing at the candy-coating. We shall see. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-30 12:02:08 PM |
| #14 Bush is caving. He's calculating that his "capital" will get a higher return in domestic areas such as SCOTUS nomination battles and tort reform than in standing up to the Iran-Three Dwarves Bund. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-30 11:56:19 AM |
| #13 Bush has said we will not tolerate nukes in Iranian hands, and I think it's a safe bet he really, REALLY means it. Except that in the recent weeks when he has spoken to the issue he as pointedly not reiterated the intolerance statements and the absence has been commented upon publicly. Instead we're getting leaks about getting the troops out of Iraq before mid-term elections. I hope I'm wrong but I fear I'm not. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-11-30 11:44:15 AM |
| #12 I wouldn't too quick to declare defeat...we still have a military option, which there is a very real chance of us using. As for #1 comments about it being over if the mullahs have the bomb. How exactly is that? If they do get the bomb it would be more of a reason to take action and create some glass out of iran before they could get a trully potent force built. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-11-30 11:37:49 AM |
| #11 Dave - Oops, you forgot your candy coating! Heh. ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-30 11:34:33 AM |
| #10 Or it could be Iran versus the EU with the US on the sidelines. Don't forget the other half of this is the economic package with the EU, i. e. the tribute. I think not. It's the EU that's been bribed here, not the Iranians. The mullahs couldn't care less about their people's economic prosperity; they've lined their own pockets nicely-- all of the members of the government are millionaires-- and don't need or desire any more carrots. It's the stagnant EU economies that, in view of the euro's rise and their own pitiful growth prospects, desperately need to export more to Iran. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-30 11:33:06 AM |
| #9 "If Dubya fails to keep his word on Iran, and he has said that a nuclear-weapons armed Iran will not be allowed..., then it will be the first time he has failed to do so." Exactly. He has said we will not tolerate nukes in Iranian hands, and I think it's a safe bet he really, REALLY means it. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-11-30 11:32:12 AM |
| #8 could be a reason for the CIA purges, no? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-11-30 11:27:23 AM |
| #7 The only thing I find surprising here is that it seems most have "given up" that any military action will be taken against Iran. [candy coating] It's about time, of course. The lead time on the intel and when it occurs will determine the scope of the pre-emptive action. If Dubya fails to keep his word on Iran, and he has said that a nuclear-weapons armed Iran will not be allowed (I've posted the link collection multiple times), then it will be the first time he has failed to do so. I think the evidence at this point is that action will be undertaken. By whom and the scope are the only questions I have, personally. [/candy coating] I hope I'm right and you guys have candy-coated everything you've said, too, heh. ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-30 11:25:07 AM |
| #6 Or it could be Iran versus the EU with the US on the sidelines. Don't forget the other half of this is the economic package with the EU, i. e. the tribute. The EU has assummed a position of dhimmitude to Iran. The Iranians have good reason to believe they will continue to do so in the future. The Iranians cannot threaten us but they can threaten other states in the Gulf whose behavior could threaten us. That's why our continued presence there is so important to prevent them from buckling to the mullahs. Europe now has the problem of what to do when Iran announces its nuclear capability. Munich redux. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-11-30 11:20:52 AM |
| #5 What a complete farce. Is there any doubt here that the two sides in this episode are not Iran and the West, but Iran allied with the EU Dwarves against the US? |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-30 11:11:09 AM |
| #4 I think we are going to have to reconcile ourselves to the fact of a nuclear Iran. The question is, would you like those nukes under the stewardship of a free country that is friendly to the West or a theocracy hostile towards "infidels" and a known sponsor of terrorism? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-11-30 11:08:07 AM |
| #3 I have little doubt Iran will go nuclear and Europe will again be under nuclear target. How is that EU missile defense research going? When the missiles fly, they will be aimed from Iran at Jerusalem, Berlin, Paris, London, Moscow and points in between. I have learned since Sept 2001 that mutual defense treaties with most of Europe aren't worth the paper they are written on. So every man for himself and America first. Attack Iran with everything and complete ferocity before their nuclear armed missiles can reach North America. And so sorry for the collateral damage. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-11-30 9:09:36 AM |
| #2 Absolutely, unfortunately, correct, JM. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-11-30 8:16:09 AM |
| #1 I think we are going to have to reconcile ourselves to the fact of a nuclear Iran. The mullahs are very aware that once they go nuclear they have nothing more to fear from the US. Nothing is going to stop their headlong rush for a bomb, the Europussies and that cesspool the UN are delusional, corrupt and inept. I'd wager they actually believe that the Mullahs take them seriously. The US probably should just state its new policy is if a nuke goes off anywhere in the world, the middle east and the Norks get glassed, period end of story. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-11-30 7:25:22 AM |