Iran is getting closer and closer to nuclear capability every day. We don't have a direct relationship so we have to work indirectly through European countries who do. They were able to get Iran to agree to stop trying to develop fissile material (an essential ingredient for nuclear bombs). This seemed like progress, but now Iran has gone back on this pledge.
Is another crisis looming? Fareed Zakaria thinks so in today's Washington Post. It also looks as if something does happen and the US is decides to react that Europe will provide little help irrespective of the captain of our ship at the time:
Last month the Brookings Institution conducted a scenario with mostly former American and European officials. In it, Iran actually acquires fissile material. Even facing the imminent production of a nuclear bomb, Europeans were unwilling to take any robust measures, such as the use of force or tough sanctions. James Steinberg, a senior Clinton administration official who organized this workshop, said that he was "deeply frustrated by European attitudes." Madeleine Albright, who regularly convenes a discussion group of former foreign ministers, said that on this topic, "Europeans say they understand the threat but then act as if the real problem is not Iran but the United States."
Hopefully we can work something out diplomatically, but Iran seems pretty intent to advance this technology despite the disapproval of most of the world.
love it, hate it, there's more of it at pacetown.
Article comments
1 - Jim Carruthers
Why don't you just ask Ahmed Chalabi since he's in Iran and all. And the USA paid him all that money to put up a puppet government in Iraq. Apparently, he's just visiting, so I'm sure if you just launch a blizzard of dollars at him, he could do as much as he did in Iraq.
2 - RJ
I suspect Israel will deal with the Iranian problem on its own, if the rest of the West refuses to do so...
3 - SFC SKI
Wow, Jim, that was a really helpful suggestion.
4 - Hal Pawluk
I suspect that President Kerry could change the picture in the Middle East and the attitude of the Europeans, where there isn't a hope in hell that the current president can.
President Kerry could enter the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an honest broker, rather than "Israeli muscle," as the first President Bush (the lesser father, as his son said) did at Madrid and as Clinton carried on.
It would help with the Arabs. Arab leaders like Mubarak would have cover and be able to say: "See, the U. S. is not anti-Arab" and provide assistance without de-stabilizing their own countries. European countries would get sucked up in the back-draft and come along or be cut out of the gelt.
It can be done, but not with a neocon world view.
5 - SFC SKI
I suppose Kerry could turn lead into gold and night into day as well.
The Iranians are going to try to develop nukes no matter who is President of the USA.
6 - Hal Pawluk
Possibly, but the situation in the Middle East can be improved instead of being pushed further and further in the wrong direction, as is happening now.
7 - Shark
Bush: Hey, vacation's over. Whatta ya say we INVADE IRAN?!
Chorus of Neo-Cons: Whoo-hoo! Let the party continue! (aside: Get my stockbroker on the phone...)
Rummy: um, guys... we're out of military personnel...
Powell: Oh, that's right, they're busy cleaning up Afghanistan -- y'know... where all the terrorists are.
Rummy: um, no, there's only a skeleton crew over there. They're all in Iraq.
Armitage: (whispers) ...along with the terrorists...
Bush: So Dad, I mean Dick -- what do we do about Iran?
Cheney: Guess we'll have to nuke 'em. Yeah. Mwaa-ha-haaaaa...
8 - Shark
WOLFOWITZ: I can see a down side to that.
POWELL: Oh yeah, massive civilian deaths...
WOLFOWITZ: No, you idiot; no 'rebuilding' contracts.
RUMMY: Dick, does Halliburton handle radioactive nations?
CHENEY: Sure. We're... I mean... um... "they're" prepared for a restoration following a potentia WW III. They had a CEO with a lot of foresight... heheh.
BUSH: Okay, let's invade Iraq. No, wait, make that "Iran". Hell, let's just keep it simple and invade all nations beginning with "I".
CHENEY: Awesome.
9 - RedTard
Unfortunately, being even handed in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict means giving credit where it is not due. It means putting suicide bombers, who walk on buses crowded with women and children and blow them to smithereens, on equal footing with a people who do dastardly deeds like building protective walls and making curfews.
It wouldn't surprise me if you were right though. European countries, whose citizens favorite pastime is sneaking out at night to paint swastikas on Jewish graves, would probably like the "even handed" approach.
I think US policy has been pretty rationale up to this point. The Palestinian Authority, or whoever the Palestinians choose, need to be able to control their people before you can hope to enter into any lasting agreement. Even if the Authority signs on and follows a treaty that doesn't mean that Hamas, Al Aqsa's Martyr Brigade and others terrorist organizations are going to honor the agreement with the 'Zionists'.
If the Palestinians could just control themselves for even six months, instead of retaliating by killing women and children call out CNN when their rights are being violated, world opinion would force Israel into a deal and I would support it.
BTW. Less than eight hours ago another suicide bomb went off at an Israeli checkpoint, not that anyone would care.
10 - Hal Pawluk
That's a nonsensical, racist characterization of Europeans, RedTard.
And not being perceived as Israel's pet pit bull is not the same as condoning suicide bombings.
The conflict CAN be approached in a rational manner, as President Bush (41) showed.
11 - RedTard
Probably not the first exaggeration to appear on these hallowed pages. I will grudgingly admit that you may have a point when you talk about perception. Whether true or not, the world and many Americans have a perception that US and George Bush have aspirations to create an Evil Empire. I personally don't believe that but it has tainted his image beyond repair. I believe that had September 11 not occured Bush would have been happy to spend the rest of his presidency vacationing at Camp David and watching baseball, not exactly the hobbies of a crazed power hungry madman.
Changing the figurehead probably will improve the world's opinion of us in the short term. It may even win us some concessions similiar to when Reagan took office and the Iranians turned over the hostages just to spite Carter. That doesn't make me like Kerry's policies any better and I don't vote based on world opinion.
12 - RJ
"That's a nonsensical, racist characterization of Europeans, RedTard."
Europeans aren't a race, Hal.
13 - Hal Pawluk
As Cheney said, RJ.
14 - JR
Unfortunately, being even handed in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict means giving credit where it is not due. It means putting suicide bombers, who walk on buses crowded with women and children and blow them to smithereens, on equal footing with a people who do dastardly deeds like building protective walls and making curfews.
You could just as easily say it puts the non-violent majority of Palestinians trying to eke out a living on equal footing with machine-gun toting settlers forcing a much larger and poorer population onto a smaller and smaller area of land (there are well over a million Palestinians in Gaza, yet 8000 Israeli settlers occupy 40% of the land.)
There is a lot to condemn the terrorists and the Palestinian Authority for, no denying that; but portraying the acts of a few hand selected examples from each side as indicative of the entire conflict is probably not the best way to introduce ourselves as "honest brokers".
And I was under the impression that soccer (football) is still a little more popular than swastika painting in Europe.
15 - RedTard
The difference is that the Israeli government could stop the settlers and any other infractions immediately and almost completely if it had the desire to do so. They are able to sign on to a working peace agreement and enforce it. I don't think it is reasonable to believe that right now there is any one point of authority in Palestine that can do the same thing.
16 - RedTard
The difference is that the Israeli government could stop the settlers and any other infractions immediately and almost completely if it had the desire to do so. They are able to sign on to a working peace agreement and enforce it. I don't think it is reasonable to believe that right now there is any one point of authority in Palestine that can do the same thing.
17 - Hal Pawluk
Doesn't your own statement make you want to stop and think about it, even for a moment?
RedTard: The difference is that the Israeli government could stop the settlers and any other infractions immediately and almost completely if it had the desire to do so.
Clearly they want to pursue their land grab, and can get away with it because they have their "Big Brother Sam" covering their backs.
If they were convinced that America meant it when they said "Stop that shit, Sharon," things would change.
And remember that there are millions of Israelis who don't agree with what the present hard-right Israeli government is doing, so "Sam" would have a lot of support in Israel.
Then Sam could lean on the Palestinians.
Just think about it.
18 - JR
The difference is that the Israeli government could stop the settlers and any other infractions immediately and almost completely if it had the desire to do so.
A very telling statement, if you really believe that. So they don't want to stop the settlements? Because they've never stopped expanding them. The Israeli government thinks its okay to keep grabbing land from the Palestinians, no matter what kind of crowded conditions they force a couple million people into? And as honest brokers we're supposed to support that?
Personally, I don't believe ending the settlements will be so easy. Many of those settlers are determined and very well armed. If Sharon ever really does act on his empty promises, we'll see some action that will make Waco look like a love-in.
19 - RedTard
We are going through the same circular arguments that have plagued peace talks for years. You expect Israel to unilaterally break the standoff with no assurances of security and I expect the Palestinians to lay off suicide bombing first.
20 - Hal Pawluk
It definitely won't be easy. I'd be pleased to see reasonable stability between the two parties within the next decade or two.
But it will never happen unless someone starts the process, and "Sam" looks like the one most likely to be able to kick it off.
21 - JR
You expect Israel to unilaterally break the standoff with no assurances of security and I expect the Palestinians to lay off suicide bombing first.
I expect the Israelis unilaterally stop exacerbating the standoff. Both sides have at least tried cease-fires, along with all other manner of talks and agreements; but the Israelis kept grabbing land all along. If they won't address the root cause of the conflict, how can they expect it to end?
22 - RedTard
The settlements are definitely a problem. They have already been addressed and tentatively agreed upon giving 95% land back to Palestinians and compensating them with a combination of other land and money. The thorny issue for the last few years is the 'right of return' which has been guaranteed by previous UN resolutions.
With the current level of hatred it would be crazy for Israel to allow a good portion of the Palestinians to come back into the country. If you don't allow the Palestinians back you break international law and if you do then there is at least a small chance that they will destabilize and eventually destroy the state of Israel.
23 - JR
The settlements haven't been addressed because regardless of what Israel has agreed to, they've never actually followed through. When I see settlers on buses back to Israel, then I might start to believe the issue is being addressed.
The 'right of return' does seem unworkable; from what I've seen, these two groups of people aren't ready to live together. I suspect the Palestinians and the international community will have to settle for reparations at best.
24 - RJ
Kerry was recently on the cover of PODER talking about how strongly he supports Israel.
Doesn't sound like an "honest broker" to me...