here's a blow to kerry's foreign policy plans. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6230380/ -- Iran snubs efforts to halt nuclear progress EU was pursuing economic incentives Reuters TEHRAN, Iran - The European Union cannot force Iran to give up its right to enrich uranium, Iran’s foreign minister said, dealing a blow to EU efforts to halt the process and ease fears Tehran is seeking a nuclear bomb. “It is wrong for them to think they can, through negotiations, force Iran to stop enrichment,” Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told a conference in Tehran on Tuesday. “Iran will never give up its right to enrichment.” Diplomats said the EU had agreed on Monday to prepare a package of “carrots and sticks” to get Iran to comply with demands by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency to suspend enrichment activities — a process that can be used to make material for atomic bombs. The New York Times reported on Tuesday that U.S. officials were also working on the package of incentives with the EU. However, diplomats in Vienna said that Washington was not interested in discussing any carrots for Iran — only sticks. Washington believes Iran is secretly developing nuclear arms and wants it referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions. Help from Moscow Iran says it wants to master the full nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment, so it does not have to rely on imported fuel for an ambitious atomic energy program. EU ministers had urged Russia, which is building an atomic plant in Iran despite strong U.S. criticism, to join the initiative. But a foreign ministry official in Moscow said on Tuesday Russia thought the EU proposals would be ineffective. Russia has long maintained that Iran has an entirely peaceful nuclear program and cannot use Moscow’s atomic know-how to make weapons. Although Iran is not enriching uranium at present, it is preparing a large batch of raw uranium ready for the process and has resumed building enrichment centrifuges in defiance of a previous agreement with Britain, Germany and France. The IAEA called on Iran last month to halt such activities and said it may be sent to the Security Council if it failed to do so by the next IAEA board meeting on Nov. 25. Kharrazi said it was up to the EU to make proposals “that safeguard our right to nuclear technology for peaceful ends” while he provided assurances to the world that Tehran is not building atomic weapons. Proliferation crisis The IAEA said on Monday that equipment and material that could be used to make atomic weapons had been disappearing from Iran’s western neighbor, Iraq. Western diplomats said the agency feared the U.S.-led war aimed at disarming Iraq may have unleashed a proliferation crisis, if looters had sold nuclear equipment. “If some of this stuff were to end up in Iran, some people would be very concerned,” a diplomat close to the IAEA told Reuters. “The IAEA’s big concern would be profiteering, people who would sell this stuff with no regard for who is buying it.” As a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is entitled to enrich uranium under IAEA supervision. A senior IAEA team arrived in Iran on Monday, state television reported. It said the IAEA team hoped to clarify outstanding questions about Iran’s nuclear program and to visit several facilities including the Parchin military base near Tehran which some diplomats have cited as a possible covert atomic arms site. The IAEA has so far said it has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran but that some outstanding issues need to be clarified.
the point remains, mulder. we're told on one hand we can't act unilaterally. that the alternative is to have the world community, though the UN or otherwise, put pressure on nations to live by certain standards and mandates. but what happens when they don't? what happens when they won't? what happens when they just blow them off? is there no enforcement?? there seems to be little willingness by european nations to enforce their own "mandates." maybe they're right...maybe it's not worth it. but if that's the case, just save the hassle of pretending to set mandates. mandates without enforcement are just words, and are ultimately worthless. and let's not pretend then, that's a real solution...or let's just be honest and say that solution ultimately is to pretend nothing is happening and whistle in the wind.
In this case, we should see increasing sanctions, the estrangement of Iran from the world community, and the beginnings of a buildup to stronger action if necessary. This can ONLY happen through the UN, particularly if there is a build up towards a military action. The US doesn't have the troops to invade and occupy Iran alone even if we pulled EVERYONE from Iraq. Personally, I think that Kerry is the only candidate with enough credibility in the worldwide community to show the kind of leadership it would take to have a real impact on Iran. Iran is well aware that the US cannot commit anything even approaching enough troops and may very well be the reason they sent doctored "intelligence" through Chalabi to manipulate Bush into an invasion of Iraq. With the US occupying their neighbor, they killed two birds with one stone: the US is too busy to have any sort of military action towards them AND their largest antagonist is no longer in power. We need leadership and GWB has showed us exactly how poor a leader he is, particularly when he is attempting to lead anyone but the GOP.
Andymoon hits on the key point: We can't act unilaterally. Not because we can't, but because we are not able to, as we lack the military, economic & diplomatic capital to do anything aside from launch a few token airstrikes or something. And I'm sure that will be well received.... This, of course, is a proximate and foreseeable cause of the Administration's invasion of Iraq, Pottery barn style.
I see it as a need for Kerry's leadership and diplomacy. The idea that liberating Iraq was going to serve as an example and send a powerful message to other middle east nations hasn't worked in the case of Iran. Instead of being more open compliant, they have progressed in their development of the nuclear material needed to make a nuke weapon. Under Bush's watch, they have done all this. They know the U.S. is spred too thin at the moment, and that Europe appears weak, and unable to work well with the U.S. so they can thumb their nose at us and the UN. I agree with Andy's points on what needs to be done. We need someone who can show Europe that it is in their best interest to act.
do you really believe the Europeans, much less the UN, have the will to confron iran militarily? even if a president kerry got down on his knees and promised all americans would eat a daily ration of stinky cheese it wouldn't happen. who would send troops that didn't in iraq? France? germany? what about some of the erstwhile arab allies from '91? do you honestly think egypt, syria, and saudi would put troops in the field against the mullahs? if so, your living in a dream world.
this is an excellent point. even beyond a "want to"...perhaps we just can't. and i'm not really taking the position that we should. i suppose i'm speaking out of a more philosophical approach to world diplomacy than a case scenario with Iran. i am frustrated, however, with the reluctance of the "world community" and europe in particular to enforce any edict they issue.
Some of those countries sent troops in Afghanistan. They will lend men to the cause when they can see that it is in their best interest. Again though, sending men in may not be the best action to take. It certainly shouldn't be the first action we take. We don't know what Kerry could do as leader of our country negotiating with them. We did see what Bush did. Acting like you have all the answers and 'it's my way or the highway' didn't prove to effective. Perhaps sitting and showing our allies what they have to lose if we don't act, and what could be gained by a victory in shutting down the Iran nuke program, listening to their ideas, and giving then a voice in the decision making would might do wonders for our diplomacy. I would love to give it a try. It seems like so long since it's been done.
Certainly not today and definitely not with Bush at the helm. If we are to have a real impact on Iran's nuclear ambitions, we will have to start the process by leading the world, not by thumbing our nose at the majority of it. Reagan could have shown that kind of leadership, GHWB would have been able to do it, I have questions about whether Clinton could have, but there is no doubt in my mind that this type of leadership and statesmanship is quite simply beyond GWB's capability. He showed in the lead up to Iraq exactly how little regard he has for the world and if you think he can lead the world to do something about Iran, you have been frequenting too many coffeeshops in Amsterdam. Kerry is exactly the kind of leader and statesman we need so that we can step up to the plate and lead the majority of the world rather than snubbing them.
Then think about this... President Bush invaded Iraq when it wasn't a clear and present danger to the United States. His supporters can talk as long as they want to about how it's happened, we're stuck with it, we make policy based off of the reality of Iraq, not what might have been, and so on, and so on, but one fact remains. Bush made the decision, now based on whatever reasons he is giving this week, to invade a sovereign nation that was no immediate danger to this country. Now we face a real nuclear threat in North Korea and a real imminent threat in Iran, and we do not have the means to threaten either one with the full might and power of America. We are in it deep. And we should reward Bush's incompetence with a second term?? That is madness. At least LBJ, realizing his catastrophic mistake in Vietnam, had the honor to decline a bid for a second term. Bush refuses to admit that he even made a mistake worthy of firing the advisors who assisted him in making it. And he should be re-elected? Unbelievable. Keep D&D Civil!!
Well the world (european) community hasn't really acted that much of their own accord except with American leadership in the past. Look at GW1, Baker's shuttle diplomacy stitched together a real coaltion (I forgot poland!) that spurred everybody into action. Look at Bosnia/Kosovo, it took Clinton, Albright & co. to get them to take definitive action in their own backyard Look at Afghanistan, despite Bush being disliked by most Euro govts, a truly international coalition served and is serving there still, falling in behind the US. Of course, now nobody will trust us with good reason but that's a different story. In the past, we have styled ourselves - rightfully - as the leader of the free world, so a lack of initiative on the part of the rest of the free world is not surprising, though not necessarily exusable --the problem is we have been seriously damaged in that role in both terms of capacity and credibility.
I agree entirely with your post, Sam. And that's a pretty dim conclusion to be drawn from your post...the leader can't be trusted...and those that need a leader won't lead on their own. So that leaves us with real threats left uncountered. If you're correct on that, then that is certainly the greatest fault of the Bush administration.
i'm thinking you might have meant that sarcastically...but it's so true, nonetheless!!!! seeking joy from world affairs is a lonely, tiresome exercise!
No, the weather is nice! but then it always looks nice outside from my office window, even when its 33 and rainign....
do you think iran is an "imminent" threat now? if that's true, then why must it still pass the global test? and i'd argue our position is much stronger than you suggest, particularly vs. iran. true, we might not want ot mount a full scale invasion, but that has as much to do with geography and internal iranian politics than it does lack of available forces. an invasion of iran would be a much different campaign from that of iraq. i think we're more likely to see a missle strike than ground troops. a really, what good is the rest of the world if, when confronted by clear and present danger, they will only act if "led" by the US?
