Let's not forget the American that died there as well. Yes it is not totally in control. That doesn't mean that France didn't engage in diplomacy, and end up meeting preliminary success. I hope that doesn't bother you.
Right....I'm sure the US could invade Iran easily. It's only bigger than Afghanistan and IRaq combined, and those are no sweat.
I agree with all your points - I was just noting that the US 'presense' is bound to have an effect on Iran - the extent of it's effect cannot be quantified but it is a factor.
Sam, Not saying we are going to invade anyone, and I hope we don't. I am just saying that the Mullahs are mindful of what happened in Iraq and Afganastan. More so than dialogue with the EU. DD
Why would they be mindful of it if it has no possibility - zero - of happening to them? We couldn't invade Iran if we wanted to. I know this. They know this. So why is it a factor?
is it possible it's a combination of both? the UN is the group through which Iran can concede in some way without losing face...and a group that can put some diplomatic pressure on. but it's hard for me to believe that the troops just across the border had NOTHING to do with this decision. it's hard for me to believe that Iranian leaders don't have some fear that non-compliance will lead to their demise.
Might they be thnking of Saddam rather than all of Iraq? He's out. Maybe Bush will borrow Kerry's Insertion Plan of assasination that andymoon is so fond of?
I'm a democrat, but it's obvious, this happened right after bush got elected. No less than a week after. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out.
Can anyone say "Reagan and the Iranian Hostage Crisis?" Weren't they released on Innauguration Day....
He already borrowed his strategy on Iraq - beg the UN and NATO for help - so I wouldn't doubt it. Anyway, who do we assassinate? The Iron Sheik?
The threat to Iran is not to invade - but to do just about everything/anything else - and to do it quickly and unilaterally. The U.S. is more agile in the region. It's not necessary to form a coalition - we have one. No need to negotiate to use Airbases - we have them. Oh and by the way - we have much better inteligence in the region too. It's no surprise that Iran made this capitulation after the election - Kerry stated he would not act unilaterally - so his election would have removed the fear of unilateral action. Therefore - Bush can be credited!
I thought airstrikes and cruise missile strikes were symbolic of failure, and labelled by many as a particularly "Democrat" failure, in approaching terrorism. "all the democrats will do is just shoot off a few cruise missiles" was a popular refrain. In fact, many said that that's all Kerry would do. Now you are saying that this is an acceptable path, and that he wouldn't even do that? But anyway, please provide backing for your claim with regard to Kerry's alleged statement, I would like a quote, date, etc.
Guys, the election is over, you can stop posturing. Why do some of you guys have to make this into a debate? This is a good thing. It doesn't matter what Kerry would have done now, does it? That goes to both sides.
It is possible, that the U.S. presence also had an effect. I won't argue that it did or didn't. But there certainly isn't evidence or testimony to that effect. There is evidence and testimony to the likelihood that the EU, and the UN had an effect in getting the deal done. It wouldn't surprise me if the U.S. actions had some direct or indirect role. I haven't made an effort to discredit that, but I do disagree with people who are trying to give the U.S. credit for something that other organizations and countries have been heavily involved in, and continue to be involved in.
It's just a week after the election and my mother-in-law is having surgery today. I won't give credit to the election though. Because this surgery was talked about and planned for prior to the election. Likewise the deal with Iran has been going on long before the election. It's not like this just happened. Other nations and the UN have been working on it for a while now. It has had some early success. Trying to not give credit to the people actually involved in bringing this deal about is wrong, and arrogant for those who try and claim all the credit for themselves.
you may be misreading. i don't know that anyone is saying that the UN deserves no credit for this. i think people are saying that iranian leaders, like most leaders around the world, are concerned first and foremost with their own power...and when that power is threatened or they fear for its survival, they do things you didn't expect them to do otherwise. certainly the diplomatic pressures the UN put on are important...there's no doubt of that. but my best guess is that it's not nearly as meaningful to Tehran as US armed forces across the border and the fear that the guy in power will do the same to them that he did to the last group who didn't comply with UN orders.
It is amazing that some people here think that having the most powerful military a few miles from your borders and being a named enemy of that country would not effect their thinking. Of course they are worried that the US will act and take them out. No one is concerned with the UN, it has no teeth. DD
