Today's Washington Post has a letter from seven foreign diplomats (including Madeline Albright) on how to deal with Iran. No wonder the UN is a philosophically bankrupt mess. Old diplomats never die...they just form circle jerks.
My comments below are in bold, but I'd love to hear how the left would deal with Iran. XP, lander, Ba'athist Doc...pony up.
How to Approach Iran
Monday, December 13, 2004; Page A21
The following article was signed by Madeleine Albright, secretary of state in the Clinton administration, and by seven former foreign ministers: Robin Cook of Britain, Hubert Vedrine of France, Lamberto Dini of Italy, Lloyd Axworthy of Canada, Niels Helveg Petersen of Denmark, Ana Palacio of Spain and Jozias van Aartsen of the Netherlands.
We offer the following ideas on obtaining full cooperation from the Iranians.
First, the United States and Europe must be clear about their collective purpose. The Iranians have made splitting the Atlantic partnership their modus operandi, hoping that disagreements between the United States and Europe will buy them the time to progress down the nuclear path to the point of irreversibility. In order to counteract this strategy, European and U.S. policymakers must repeatedly and jointly articulate that they seek to hold Iran to the obligations it has accepted under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to refrain from building nuclear arms. In the same breath, American and European heads of state must emphasize that the West does not seek to deny Iran the right to a peaceful civilian nuclear energy program under the necessary safeguards.
That's right. The Iranians, who sit on one of the largest deposits of oil in the world, are only interested in a 'peaceful civilian' nuclear program.
Second, the major nuclear suppliers (Russia, the United States and Europe) should provide a firm guarantee to supply fresh reactor fuel for civilian nuclear power and to retrieve and dispose of spent fuel in exchange for Iran's agreement to permanently forswear its own nuclear fuel-cycle capabilities, including enrichment, reprocessing, uranium conversion and heavy-water production.
Does this sound familiar? Instead of having them make their own nuclear fuel, lets just f**king give it to them. Madeline, you idiotic s**t...isn't that what you just did with North Korea? How well did that work out? After that, now you want to help the Iranians speed up their nuclear program by supplying them fuel. Grand.
Third, the Bush administration should support the recent agreement the three European countries negotiated with the Iranians as an important first step. While it is unclear whether this deal will ultimately halt Iran's nuclear ambitions, only a unified approach will enable Europe and the United States to find out. Washington should put its full support behind this diplomatic effort and consider launching commercial and diplomatic engagement with Iran. That country's political leadership and culture have changed dramatically over the past two decades and are much more complex than many realize.
Yes, and things improved dramatically since the old man croaked and his psycho son took over in North Korea. The same is bound to happen in Iran.
Understanding the various political operatives inside Iran and their motivations requires the United States to instigate face-to-face interaction. Doing so could bring direct benefits to the United States as disagreements over the nuclear question need not, for example, disrupt efforts to achieve cooperation on such matters as narcotics enforcement, Iraq, the fight against terrorism and peace in the Middle East.
If we could just all have a group hug, maybe the Iranian Mullahs would stop being the biggest supporter of terror and stop supporting the guys killing us in Iraq.
If the Americans need to increase their support for diplomatic efforts, Europeans must prove to the Iranians that severe political and economic consequences will result if Iran does not renounce the nuclear weapons option.
Translation: when they tell us to go f**k ourselves, we can get together and fire back at them with a strongly worded letter. That should really make them stop and re-think.
In the event that diplomacy fails and Iran decides not to abandon its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, Europeans should be ready for alternative courses of action, including going to the U.N. Security Council, and they should repeatedly stress their willingness to act.
This now borders on hilariously funny. When the strongly worded letter inevitably fails to work, then we'll really come out guns-a-blazing by going to the Security Council and getting...
=========sound the trumpets==============
A RESOLUTION.
My goodness...talk about playing serious hardball.
The transatlantic community should not be trying to force a confrontation with Iran, but we must not fear one if that's what is necessary to prevent the introduction of another nuclear weapons program into the combustible Middle East.
Don't fear? Now that is really a strong stance.
The interests of every nation will be served by an arrangement that gives Iran the civilian nuclear program it says it wants and the international community the insurance it needs.
Perhaps we should review again: Iran is sitting on a pool of oil, and has NO civilian need for nuclear energy. How is this sorry ass proposal of your's going to accomplish anything, Madeline?
Together, with sufficient patience and resolve, Europe and America must push as hard as possible to achieve that outcome and stand together, as well, in the event the effort does not succeed.
Put me in the 'favoring standing behind Germany and France in their effort' group.
My comments below are in bold, but I'd love to hear how the left would deal with Iran. XP, lander, Ba'athist Doc...pony up.
How to Approach Iran
Monday, December 13, 2004; Page A21
The following article was signed by Madeleine Albright, secretary of state in the Clinton administration, and by seven former foreign ministers: Robin Cook of Britain, Hubert Vedrine of France, Lamberto Dini of Italy, Lloyd Axworthy of Canada, Niels Helveg Petersen of Denmark, Ana Palacio of Spain and Jozias van Aartsen of the Netherlands.
We offer the following ideas on obtaining full cooperation from the Iranians.
First, the United States and Europe must be clear about their collective purpose. The Iranians have made splitting the Atlantic partnership their modus operandi, hoping that disagreements between the United States and Europe will buy them the time to progress down the nuclear path to the point of irreversibility. In order to counteract this strategy, European and U.S. policymakers must repeatedly and jointly articulate that they seek to hold Iran to the obligations it has accepted under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to refrain from building nuclear arms. In the same breath, American and European heads of state must emphasize that the West does not seek to deny Iran the right to a peaceful civilian nuclear energy program under the necessary safeguards.
That's right. The Iranians, who sit on one of the largest deposits of oil in the world, are only interested in a 'peaceful civilian' nuclear program.
Second, the major nuclear suppliers (Russia, the United States and Europe) should provide a firm guarantee to supply fresh reactor fuel for civilian nuclear power and to retrieve and dispose of spent fuel in exchange for Iran's agreement to permanently forswear its own nuclear fuel-cycle capabilities, including enrichment, reprocessing, uranium conversion and heavy-water production.
Does this sound familiar? Instead of having them make their own nuclear fuel, lets just f**king give it to them. Madeline, you idiotic s**t...isn't that what you just did with North Korea? How well did that work out? After that, now you want to help the Iranians speed up their nuclear program by supplying them fuel. Grand.
Third, the Bush administration should support the recent agreement the three European countries negotiated with the Iranians as an important first step. While it is unclear whether this deal will ultimately halt Iran's nuclear ambitions, only a unified approach will enable Europe and the United States to find out. Washington should put its full support behind this diplomatic effort and consider launching commercial and diplomatic engagement with Iran. That country's political leadership and culture have changed dramatically over the past two decades and are much more complex than many realize.
Yes, and things improved dramatically since the old man croaked and his psycho son took over in North Korea. The same is bound to happen in Iran.
Understanding the various political operatives inside Iran and their motivations requires the United States to instigate face-to-face interaction. Doing so could bring direct benefits to the United States as disagreements over the nuclear question need not, for example, disrupt efforts to achieve cooperation on such matters as narcotics enforcement, Iraq, the fight against terrorism and peace in the Middle East.
If we could just all have a group hug, maybe the Iranian Mullahs would stop being the biggest supporter of terror and stop supporting the guys killing us in Iraq.
If the Americans need to increase their support for diplomatic efforts, Europeans must prove to the Iranians that severe political and economic consequences will result if Iran does not renounce the nuclear weapons option.
Translation: when they tell us to go f**k ourselves, we can get together and fire back at them with a strongly worded letter. That should really make them stop and re-think.
In the event that diplomacy fails and Iran decides not to abandon its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, Europeans should be ready for alternative courses of action, including going to the U.N. Security Council, and they should repeatedly stress their willingness to act.
This now borders on hilariously funny. When the strongly worded letter inevitably fails to work, then we'll really come out guns-a-blazing by going to the Security Council and getting...
=========sound the trumpets==============
A RESOLUTION.
My goodness...talk about playing serious hardball.
The transatlantic community should not be trying to force a confrontation with Iran, but we must not fear one if that's what is necessary to prevent the introduction of another nuclear weapons program into the combustible Middle East.
Don't fear? Now that is really a strong stance.
The interests of every nation will be served by an arrangement that gives Iran the civilian nuclear program it says it wants and the international community the insurance it needs.
Perhaps we should review again: Iran is sitting on a pool of oil, and has NO civilian need for nuclear energy. How is this sorry ass proposal of your's going to accomplish anything, Madeline?
Together, with sufficient patience and resolve, Europe and America must push as hard as possible to achieve that outcome and stand together, as well, in the event the effort does not succeed.
Put me in the 'favoring standing behind Germany and France in their effort' group.
> </O
