No, I am not denying that Iran fails to meet the above transparency and safeguards criteria outlined above. I am simply framing the issue to a context: that is, whether the issue is that Iran is pursuing sensitive dual-use technologies - i.e., enrichment, or simply that they have lacked transparency, failing to fully disclose facilities and adopt relevant proliferation safeguards.

The latter may indeed be (and in all likelihood is) a sign of malicious intent, but it's important to keep the matter focused; if Iran were to tomorrow open its doors, declare its facilities, and adopt the relevant safeguards, it would seem here that you would then agree the matter would be moot. Yes, it is likely that they will not. However, this goal stands in important contrast with say, demanding that Iran halt all enrichment forever, regardless (even if it is verifiably only for civilian purposes), which they would pretty much never, ever agree to voluntarily.

9/21/2009 2:05:46 PM

^ If Iran would agree to the Security Council's protocol--and follow it to the letter--then, yes, the point would be moot.

BUT as I indicated: If, if, if.

And speaking of "bellicose":

Quote :

"Death to Israel!"

--Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2009 2:08:33 PM

Again, not disputing that part of it. I am simply pointing out that there is a significant difference, based upon what you see as the problem.

A) Iran opens its doors, declares facilities, adopts safeguards
B) Iran halts all enrichment

Based on everything I've read, it seems like we've been demanding B) all along, even though you seem to agree that A) is the necessary and sufficient condition. B), I would argue, will inherently result in an impasse.

9/21/2009 2:10:14 PM

^ Oh, for Christ's sake--you can't base your position on a false premise! Sweet Jesus!

Iran will do neither--I guarantee it. Any attempt at A will be half-hearted and will undoubtedly cease at some point (the point at which inspectors get too close to the truth and/or it suits the whim of the Iranian leadership--probably based on some wrong by Israel alleged by Iran).

And B is simply a fantasy:

Ahmadinejad: Iran will never stop nuclear program
Thu Sep 17, 2009

Quote :

"'If you are talking about the enrichment of uranium for peaceful purposes, this will never be closed down here in Iran,' he said."

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN17231382

9/21/2009 2:17:32 PM

Quote :

"Oh, for Christ's sake--you can't base your position on a false premise! Sweet Jesus!"

How is anything I said a false premise? I stated that this is the condition you see as necessary and sufficient for a peaceful resolution to occur. You seem to agree with that. It may very well be that condition A) is impossible to achieve - if that is your argument. But my argument has been that condition B) is what we as a policy have been demanding (in addition to A), which I claim holds us at an impasse.

Your quote only serves to support this point; we will never get B), despite the fact that we have built our policy toward Iran around this. Therefore, we are at an impasse.

Quote :

"Iran will do neither--I guarantee it. Any attempt at A will be half-hearted and will undoubtedly cease at some point (the point at which inspectors get too close to the truth and/or it suits the whim of the Iranian leadership--probably based on some wrong by Israel alleged by Iran)."

So therefore, what, exactly? We shouldn't even bother trying to negotiate A) with Iran, or bring Iran's allies (see, Russia) around to a consensus on this condition? What exactly is your point?

9/21/2009 2:24:19 PM

^ 1. We should engage in limited negotiations (meaning not dick around for years or even months, giving Iran even more time to develop their bomb). If nothing else, this will provide us with cover when we do what must be done.

2. We should immediately and fully recognize that Iran will do neither A nor B in your probability statement.

3. We should allow Israel to do what is necessary--by any means necessary--to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And we should be willing to back them to the hilt if necessary.

The real question is what is Obama going to do about this situation? This is what he has said:

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power
Jul 02, 2009

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/07/02/obama-iran-cannot-be-permitted-to-be-nuke-power/

We'll see if it's just talk.

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 2:45 PM. Reason : PS: Fuck the What is your point? shit. What is your point? ]

9/21/2009 2:39:01 PM

Quote :

"1. We should engage in limited negotiations (meaning not dick around for years or even months, giving Iran even more time to develop their bomb). If nothing else, this will provide us with cover when we do what must be done."

Then it would seem that demanding what Iran has explicitly disclaimed it will do - option B) - would be the definition of "dicking around", would it not?

Quote :

"2. We should immediately and fully recognize that Iran will do neither A nor B in your probability statement."

Then what is the point of negotiating at all? To simply provide diplomatic cover for something we've intended to do all along? And you don't think this would be both patently obvious and undermine any attempt at negotiations?

Quote :

"3. We should allow Israel to do what is necessary--by any means necessary--to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And we should be willing to back them to the hilt if necessary."

Why? Let's say that, for whatever reason, Israel uses a disproportionate response that touches off a regional war. Exactly why now is it our job to grant them unlimited freedom of action (more than we would grant ourselves, even), and then proceed to clean up their mess? It's one thing to let Israel do what it will, but quite another to issue a blank check for the consequences.

9/21/2009 2:47:23 PM

Hooksaw, I'm interested to know what your plan is for an endgame should the US attack Iran. Do you think we should just bomb it into oblivion or do would it become necessary to start another costly occupation in addition to the two we already have? Do realize, that this will stroke the fires of anti-Americanism in the ME as this will be seen as a blatant grab for resources by the rest of the un-occupied countries.

9/21/2009 2:55:47 PM

^^ 1. It's all "dicking around" after a brief period of talks.

2. The effort should be a good-faith one--but it won't be reciprocated.

3. Is a regional arms race better? Is the possible destruction of Israel better? Despite its risks, I prefer a preemptive strike--unlike any of the paths you propose, the preemptive strike has in fact worked in the past.

^ Um. . .NEWSFLASH: We don't carpet bomb anymore. Any strike would be surgical--but there would be collateral damage. I'm okay with this. The mission, however, would be much more difficult and dangerous than the 1981 mission in Iraq.

And as if the Middle East needed any prodding to hate "The Great Satan." You realize that Iran was taking hostages at a US embassy in the 1970s, right? Under another pacifist Democrat?

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM. Reason : PS: You mean stoke the fires--not "stroke." FYI. ]

9/21/2009 2:55:55 PM

Step away from the peyote.

9/21/2009 3:10:36 PM

Quote :

"Step away from the peyote."

nutsmackr

QFT

^ You realize that my position is the same as Obama's stated position, right, dummy? The only question is whether or not it's just talk from Obama.

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power
Jul 02, 2009

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/07/02/obama-iran-cannot-be-permitted-to-be-nuke-power/

9/21/2009 3:20:43 PM

OMGOBAMAHASTHATPOSITIONTHEREFOREITISTHEONLYVALIDPOSITIONDAMNMYLIBERALMIND

9/21/2009 3:33:19 PM

^ It's the one that counts, asshole. He's the commander in chief.

9/21/2009 3:36:39 PM

ONCEOBAMATAKESAPOSITIONNOONEINTHESOAPBOXCANDEVIATEFROMITHOOKSAWTELLSMESO

9/21/2009 3:37:57 PM

Quote :

"Whatever "backlash" might come would be better thatn the shivering thought of a nuclear-armed Iran. "

You mean, like, a restarting of the Cold War and the fear of retaliation from Russia or China in one form or another? How about causing instability that might bring down Pakistan and allow terrorists to get control of nukes that we KNOW are there?

This is a MAD situation whether you believe it or not.

9/21/2009 3:38:03 PM

^ I don't believe it--there is no mutually assured destruction scenario here. As usual, you don't know what the fuck you're babbling about.

And it's Obama saying that a nuclear-armed Iran would "trigger an arms race in the already volatile Mideast":

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power
Jul 02, 2009

Quote :

"He said a nuclear-armed Iran would likely trigger an arms race in the already volatile Mideast and said that would be 'a recipe for potential disaster.'"

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/07/02/obama-iran-cannot-be-permitted-to-be-nuke-power/

Do you disagree with Obama? Yes or no?

9/21/2009 3:43:48 PM

HOWDAREYOUQUESTIONHOOKSAWHENHEHASTHEAPPEALTOOBAMASAUTHORITY

9/21/2009 3:44:26 PM

Quote :

"Do you disagree with Obama? Yes or no?"

9/21/2009 3:45:57 PM

Do I agree with Obama that Iran must not have nukes? Sure. Do I agree with your statement that Obama is supporting your position of preemptive bombing? No.

do I support a preemptive bombing of Iran? No

9/21/2009 4:00:08 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5811V120090902

Quote :

"Iran nuclear "threat" hyped: IAEA's ElBaradei"

Quote :

"VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran is not going to produce a nuclear weapon any time soon and the threat posed by its atomic program has been exaggerated, the U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said in a published interview. "

felt like I needed to post that. Yes I am aware that the article is a few weeks old and came out after the "secret annex"

I dont think that the world community should allow Iran to have nuclear weapons; I also dont THINK they are actively trying to pursue building a bomb at this point. The evidence just isnt there to convince me to support a preemptive strike.



to lighten the mood

http://www.hulu.com/watch/16771/saturday-night-live-digital-short-iran-so-far

"Iran so far away" - SNL digital short

9/21/2009 4:11:46 PM

^^ So, Obama is just bullshitting with this?

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power
Jul 02, 2009

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/07/02/obama-iran-cannot-be-permitted-to-be-nuke-power

^

Quote :

"I dont think that the world community should allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. . . . "

Great--we're all in agreement! But you're not willing to actually do anything to stop Iran from getting this nuclear weapon that you and I and Obama and most of the world say they shouldn't be allowed to have, right?

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2009 4:12:18 PM

Obama said he doesn't think Iran should have nuclear weapons, I agree with that.

But I also dont think Iran is actively trying to produce a WEAPON, only nuclear energy.

I think that Iran should be able to pursue nuclear energy if they want. With nuclear energy should come the understanding that you need to be transparent about it, and I agree that Iran has been sketch with the IAEA investigators.

but I dont think that is enough evidence for a pre-emptive strike at this point.

Im still holding my breath that upcoming talks (which I believe were initiated by Iran) will relax this situation considerably.

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 4:24 PM. Reason : ?]

9/21/2009 4:21:55 PM

Hooksaw, nothing you have posted from Obama suggests that he is at all in favor or a preemptive strike against Iran.

In fact, the only thing you've managed to post by Obama is that he is against Iran getting nukes.

Congratulations. You have found a piece of information no one in the world knew about.

Seriously, I had absolutely no idea a nuclear Iran was not in the best interest of the United States, her people, or the safety of the world. You have just blown my mind. Are you clairvoyant? Can you type 100 words per minute?

9/21/2009 4:26:46 PM

^^

Quote :

"But I also dont think Iran is actively trying to produce a WEAPON, only nuclear energy."

This is naiveté at its worst. And there is a fuckton of evidence to the contrary.

^

Quote :

"But you're not willing to actually do anything to stop Iran from getting this nuclear weapon that you and I and Obama and most of the world say they shouldn't be allowed to have, right?"

hooksaw

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 4:37 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2009 4:36:41 PM

Quote :

""But you're not willing to actually do anything to stop Iran from getting this nuclear weapon that you and I and Obama and most of the world say they shouldn't be allowed to have, right?""

This is a complete non-starter. It's based upon the flaw supposition that a preemptive strike is the only means to prevent the establishment of a nuclear Iran.

9/21/2009 4:39:12 PM

^ No, it's not, you fucking stooge. Read it again:

Quote :

"But you're not willing to actually do anything to stop Iran from getting this nuclear weapon that you and I and Obama and most of the world say they shouldn't be allowed to have, right?"

hooksaw

So, define the something you're willing to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed rogue state.

9/21/2009 4:49:06 PM

Quote :

"This is naiveté at its worst. And there is a fuckton of evidence to the contrary. "

Lets just say I learned something from the Iraq war. This administration would have to really drop some verifiable and eye-opening evidence for me to support a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

You can't ignore the fact that there could be ulterior motives to attack Iran (oil, petrodollar usage etc etc)

9/21/2009 5:02:00 PM

^ 1. Obama et al clearly believe the intelligence concerning Iran.

2. So, you're equating Obama to "Evil" Bush-"Halliburton" Cheney?

9/21/2009 5:06:43 PM

Until all diplomatic attempts have stalled, preemptive strike shouldn't even been discussed.

I also think it is funny that Hooksaw is calling Iran bellicose while he is advocating bombing them preemptively.

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 5:21 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2009 5:17:35 PM

^^it's as plausible to me as Iran actively pursuing a Nuclear weapon.



Like I said Im still holding my breath that diplomacy will make some head way in the next month or so

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 5:20 PM. Reason : arrooooooowwws]

9/21/2009 5:19:44 PM

Quote :

"'Israel can determine for itself as a sovereign nation what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran or anyone else, whether we agree or not. … If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.'—Appearing to give Israel the green light to bomb Iran in interview with This Week, July 5, 2009"

--VP Joe "Doofus" Biden

http://www.slate.com/id/2228872/?GT1=38001

LOL!

9/21/2009 5:42:54 PM

Again, I think it's different to say that until Israel is absorbed as our 52nd state (you know, right after Iraq becomes 51) that it is a sovereign country with its own prerogatives, compared to actually promising to back them up no matter what they do. I don't think we have any obligation to do the latter, and I question why anyone would think that we should.

9/21/2009 5:53:09 PM

^ Normative statements abound in politics.

9/21/2009 6:19:08 PM

Quote :

"Um. . .NEWSFLASH: We don't carpet bomb anymore."

Point taken.

Quote :

"Any strike would be surgical--but there would be collateral damage."

Which would be then used as propaganda for recruiting more terrorist/militant operatives which would in turn slow down our progress in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Quote :

"The mission, however, would be much more difficult and dangerous than the 1981 mission in Iraq."

And yet, despite our foreign obligations elsewhere not to mention the massive amount of domestic problems here at home, you still believe in pushing forward with it.

That said, I don't think you are thinking about the long term implications of attacking Iran, which is one of the biggest criticisms of the Bush administration is that there was no long term game plan for dealing with the fallout of an attack. Furthermore like another poster mentioned, Iran's nuclear ambitions are greatly exaggerated. So why are you pushing for stirring up the hornet's nests with no conceivable benefits?

9/21/2009 6:25:56 PM

^^ How exactly is pointing out that Israel is a sovereign nation a normative statement, or contrasting this to the idea of expressed guarantee of support for their actions? It seems quite simple: it is one thing to say, "Israel will makes its own decisions, and we are not in a place to tell them otherwise" and, "We will support Israel unconditionally in any decision it makes." One of them implies a commitment. I will leave it to you to figure out which.

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 6:26 PM. Reason : ARROW'D]

9/21/2009 6:26:03 PM

Quote :

"I don't believe it--there is no mutually assured destruction scenario here. As usual, you don't know what the fuck you're babbling about."

Rephrasing:

What do you think Iran's allies (Russia primarily) would think of a strike? Would this be more or less likely to heighten a conflict over hegemony in the region?

Would destabilization of the ruling power in Iran be more or less likely to create regional instability? What would this mean for already unstable Pakistan?

Is Iran likely to launch a strike against Israel, a nuclear nation? If Iran has no bomb, they are suicidal and bringing about their destruction. If they do, as you believe, have it, is MAD not enough to ensure that they DON'T strike Israel?

9/21/2009 6:48:14 PM

From the Obama administration:

US sees hand of elite Iranian unit in Afghanistan

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Sept 21 (Reuters) - The United States believes Iran's Revolutionary Guards are providing training and weapons to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan to help them fight Western forces, U.S. counterterrorism officials said on Monday."

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN21522027

Iran's Ahmadinejad Warns Against Attack
Sept. 22, 2009

Quote :

"The remark, though typical for the Iranian leader, reflects Tehran's concerns it could be targeted because of its nuclear facilities. The U.S. and its allies fear Iran's nuclear program masks a secret nuclear weapons pursuit, but Tehran denies the charge and says it's for peaceful purposes only. It is also seen as a response to recent statement from Iran's archenemy Israel, which has said it is keeping all options - including the military one - on the table against Iran."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/22/world/main5328629.shtml

Iran's Ahmadinejad Promotes Holocaust Denial on Eve of UN Visit
By VOA News
21 September 2009

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-21-voa39.cfm

9/22/2009 11:59:13 AM

U.S. to Accuse Iran of Having Secret Nuclear Fuel Facility
September 25, 2009

Quote :

"PITTSBURGH — President Obama and the leaders of Britain and France will accuse Iran Friday of building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel, saying it has hidden the covert operation from international weapons inspectors for years, according to senior administration officials."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/world/middleeast/26nuke.html

So what? Right?

9/25/2009 7:25:51 AM

Would you like to answer the questions I posed?

9/25/2009 10:50:57 AM

Quote :

"But I also dont think Iran is actively trying to produce a WEAPON, only nuclear energy"

looks like Obama, Britain and France vehemently disagree

although wtf is France going to do?

Too bad the UN has zero power to do shit, and their inspectors are pushovers...how long til Iran's Hidden Nuclear facility gets linked with Obama like Bush and Iraq's WMDs?

[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2009 12:02:29 PM

^ Yeah, and I'd like to know if all those moonbats here who were howling a couple of years ago about "THE NIE! THE NIE!!!1" and calling Bush a "warmonger" concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions would like to now retract those statements?

[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 12:42 PM. Reason : I doubt it. ]

9/25/2009 12:41:45 PM

hooksaw just owned the shit out of a lot of people in this thread.

9/25/2009 12:48:20 PM

^HIGH FIVE BRO!

Quote :

"What do you think Iran's allies (Russia primarily) would think of a strike? Would this be more or less likely to heighten a conflict over hegemony in the region? Would destabilization of the ruling power in Iran be more or less likely to create regional instability? What would this mean for already unstable Pakistan? Is Iran likely to launch a strike against Israel, a nuclear nation? If Iran has no bomb, they are suicidal and bringing about their destruction. If they do, as you believe, have it, is MAD not enough to ensure that they DON'T strike Israel?"

9/25/2009 12:58:56 PM

[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 1:24 PM. Reason : no point]

9/25/2009 1:21:03 PM

MAD isn't enough to insure they wouldn't strike Israel. Well, directly it would be. But it would be very easy for them to get a bomb into Hezbollah's hands and all of a sudden it's not Iran nuking Israel, but a rogue terrorist organization.

Beyond that, if Imran Khan can get his little blackmarket network going like he did, what do you think the Iranian regime would be capable of? Proliferation to terrorists and other shady elements? Intolerable.

Not to mention that the ensuing nuclear arms race amongst all the countries of the middle east, Saudi Arabia first and foremost to counter the Iranian threat and all of a sudden you've got a lot more issues with unstable governments and all sorts of groups wanting to get their hands on them.

It's a Pandora's Box that we can't allow to even exist, let alone allow to open.

9/25/2009 3:09:24 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092500289_pf.html

good stuff

9/26/2009 2:02:00 PM

Quote :

"^ Yeah, and I'd like to know if all those moonbats here who were howling a couple of years ago about "THE NIE! THE NIE!!!1" and calling Bush a "warmonger" concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions would like to now retract those statements? "

destabilizing iran unilaterally would still be a bad idea

9/26/2009 2:07:22 PM

Quote :

""^ Yeah, and I'd like to know if all those moonbats here who were howling a couple of years ago about "THE NIE! THE NIE!!!1" and calling Bush a "warmonger" concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions would like to now retract those statements?"

hmm, and Bush did what exactly about his grave concerns? On yeah - invade Iran's two biggest neighbors and refuse to talk to anyone who could actually do anything about what happened inside Iran

9/26/2009 2:22:16 PM

^^ If you followed the news, you'd know that other countries appear to be standing with the United States concerning Iran's latest violations.



And there's this, dummy:

Obama warns Iran on nuclear site
September 25, 2009

Quote :

"'Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow, endangering the global nonproliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.'"

--President Barack Obama

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/09/obama_warns_ira.html

More Provocation? Iran Test-Fires Short-Range Missiles Amid Nuke Furor
Updated 42 min ago

Quote :

"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she doesn't believe Iran can convince the U.S. and other world powers at the upcoming meeting that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, putting Tehran on a course for tougher economic penalties beyond the current 'leaky sanctions.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=8683929&pid=4380645

Gates hints at more Iran nuke sites
09/27/09

http://tinyurl.com/ya7yxdw

^ And Obama's had to "retool" his naive approach to geopolitics:

Foreign Events Force Obama to Turn to Plan B
September 26, 2009

Quote :

"UNITED NATIONS — For President Obama, the handshakes and hugs during his first visit to the United Nations last week masked a cold reality: nine months into his presidency, he is being forced to retool his most important foreign policy initiatives, from the war in Afghanistan to peace in the Middle East and his diplomatic overture to Iran. Mr. Obama’s efforts to reach out to adversaries and break political deadlocks are running up against old enmities, insoluble differences and foreign leaders who simply do not see eye to eye with the president."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/27prexy.html

[Edited on September 27, 2009 at 9:31 PM. Reason : Just wow. It's amateur hour in the White House. ]

9/27/2009 9:29:08 PM

Quote :

"^^ If you followed the news, you'd know that other countries appear to be standing with the United States concerning Iran's latest violations. "

you asked if my position had changed, it has not. i do follow the news and am well aware of what is happening. before, no one was standing with us on the issue so my opinion that unilateral action (what it would have been) is still a bad idea.

i'll even extend this to say that i still think that removing iran's power check in the area is/was a bad idea.

9/28/2009 8:15:18 AM