You dismiss this before the plan has even been layed out. Obviously the offer of the fuel would have to include the means of overseeing their use, and consequences for failing to abide by any agreements. The other option is to let them develop the power on their own without any oversight.
Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb IIIIIIIIIIIraaaaaaaaaan because we can Where is Raygun when you need him!!!
That's one of the flaws with the whole argument. The cow hasn't already left the barn. Kerry hasn't been president in order push his proposal. Iran says the idea sounds irrational to them now. Give a sitting president an opportunity to make a proposal to them, and then judge from what the facts are. In addition to that any proposal to Iran, would coincide with keeping allies informed and soliciting cooperation, so that responses to Iran's failure to cooperate would be at the ready. In essence Kerry expects Iran to turn down the offer. As he said himself, he's merely calling their bluff. Once the bluff is called you can show the world what you tried and that Iran refused to cooperate. That will enable broader support for effective sanctions, economic pressures, etc. or whatever actions would be needed.
So why would it work better than the UN sanctions on Iraq allowing weapons inspectors to have free reign? Even after Saddam broke the agreement the UN wouldn't agree to anything (largely because France had financial dealings with Saddam so they didn't want him out of power). And I have no idea who may have dealings with Iran on the UN security council but I'm sure if there's a buck to be made that one of the countries (if not the UN itself) will be lookign out for it's interests rather than the safety of the US and our allies.
Because hopefully they would be better designed and adhered to. More like the sanctions against South Africa which were effective.
It was my understanding that they don't have it in sufficient or proper form to run their own nuke plants or generate additional power. I could be wrong, but I thought that was where the trouble came. They claim they want the increased capacity to generate their own nuke power plants which use the same process as bomb making would.
Kerry's point, then, was that if Iran rejects this proposal, it will become more evident what Iran's true nuclear plans are. I don't know exaclty what Bush's plans are, but I assume it involves use of force. If this is the case, even he should at least be FOR Kerry's plan first, because it allows you to try and solve the problem peacefully. If a true "negotiation" or "agreement" is presented but there is no good faith effort by Iran to participate, then you have to start looking at back-up plans.
In general Saddam was a liar, in the case leading up to this war, he has a better track record than the Bush administration. Saddam claimed that he was using aluminum tubes for rockets not nukes. The Bush administration said nukes. It turns out Saddam was telling the truth. Saddam said he didn't have the WMD, the Bush administration said he was. In this case Saddam was telling the truth. But because of his history Saddam should not be trusted. That's why any negotiations would have come with verification as part of the plan, such as putting U.S. intel agents on the ground in Iraq.
