Bush raises option of using force against Iran



Questions:

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?
This is absolutely the worst possible message we could be sending to Iran. It is heard in Teheran as "You Iranians had better hurry up your bomb-building efforts, because so long as you lack the bomb, you're vulnerable; but we won't be attacking any time soon, so you probably have enough time to get it built before we attack, if you hurry."

Ack! What worse message could we be sending?

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

It is time for the UN to impose economic sanctions on Iran. The Iranians are definitely worried about those sanctions, as they would do to Iran what they did to Iraq: gut the economy. Saddam Hussein had an iron grip on Iraq and so was able to hold the country even as its economy collapsed into tatters. But the mullahs have not so certain a grip on Iran; the severe economic impact of sanctions could well trigger a revolution, and I think they know that.

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?

It seems to me that the President said that the use of force would be the LAST option. Not such a bad message to send to the world. We will try everything that we can, but in the end, if all else fails, we will protect ourselves through the use of force. Is there a country that doesn't say this?

Of course the argument can be made that this is a sovereign nation, who are we to tell them what they can and can not produce. It is a solid question that is not easily answered. Also, it might make a really good debate topic (hint, hint, nudge, nudge).

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

Like bribery? didn't work so well in North Korea. I don't know. Perhaps, if the world leaders would work together to pressure Iran they would return to the table. However, we have to remember that the President said force would be the LAST option. I assume that the use of sanctions and trade embargos would be used long before that (we can only hope that they are better regulated this time).



I agree. The Mullahs have real opposition issues that they are already facing. Economic sanctions could worsen those considerably. That is of course, so long as they are enacted, maintained, and overseen without corruption.

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?

um, no, duh? Erasmussimo posted the salient points- and OS- do you think the rest of the world heard "last resort"- no, they heard "force" meaning, "we will find some pretext to invade you"- and since this is a democratically elected goverment, there is no Saddam as a whipping boy to whom we can point our fingers and say "bad guy, bad guy"

I am not sure if sanctions would help on this either- I am not sure they would blame the mullahs for thier misery- I think they would blame the US, and instead of having a slim majority for thier Mullahs, they would have an overwhelming majority radicalized even further.

I have no doubt that in the near future Iran will have the bomb.

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

I really don't think there is anything the US can do- Europe MAY have a slim chance of getting some concessions, but I doubt it.

I think GWs invasion of Iraq pretty much took any real US use of force off the table, AND strengthened the hard liners in Iran.

In this case with Iran, we are pretty much done. They can do what they will.

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?



This is the classic Presidential response, and has been for the past 50 years to this sort of a question about negotiations with another country. It's part of "Presidential 101" and every President since at least FDR would have, or should have answered in this fashion. Carter might not have, but we sure know how successful he was....

You never take anything off the table at this point in a negotiation. This is really standard policy. Nothing wrong with it at all.

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?


Yeah, go to the UN and have the Security Council impose some sanctions on Iran. Of course that means Russia, France, and China would have to agree.

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?

I'm feeling agreeable today...

I agree with Aquilla that a US President ought to say the types of things Dubya did say. I agree with Erasmussimo that the timing is...well...poor. Finally, I agree with CR that the "last resort" statement is relatively meaningless unless and until US forces are removed from Iraq AND those forces have time to recuperate. The Iranians know this and are using it to their advantage. In other words, the best time to build nukes is now.

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

Personally, I don't believe there is any solution that will prevent Iran from building nukes. Iran justifiably desires a means of self-defense from what it considers the hegemony of the US. The damage is done; the lines have been drawn; we reap what we sow.

Finally, OS's "bribery" statement is disingenuous. You could argue that ANY trade or treaty is in some sense "bribery", that is, you get something when you give something. Yes, in that sense, all agreements, unless they are ultimatums, are bribes. However, calling negotiations with Iran to prevent them from building nukes is not bribery. By calling it that, OS has essentially dismissed the principles of diplomacy.

Sure, leave me out of the crew. Always on the outside looking in, that's me.



You make an excellent point. You are correct, all diplomacy can be looked at as bribery if once chooses to. I personally don't. My choose of wording was quite poor (I was rushed as I am frantically trying to clean the house before my wife gets home from 2 weeks away ).

The point I would have liked to make then, is that with anything given in a diplomatic solution there must be audits and over-site. We failed to do this with North Korea and I would just like to see us avoid making the same mistake twice.

CR, you're likely right, the world more then likely heard "force" and nothing else. However, we can't take force of the table as it weakens our position in negotiations (if we ever get to negotiations). So when asked the question, how else could the President answer?

I have read an article here or there that has suggested that Iran has made overtures towards America in trade and the like. Some went as far as to suggest that in 20 years from now, we might find ourselves in the solid relationship with Iran that we had prior to the hostage crisis.

If this is true, if Iran is looking to us as a possible trade partner and ally (but perhaps being quiet about it for fear of repercussions from groups within their boarders) then Diplomacy will surely be a workable solution IMHO.

I guess only time will tell.

Good catch Logo!!

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?

I think this has been consistently said about Iran for the past four years. I am not in the camp that thinks we exhausted many of our options, much less all of our options, before invading Iraq so I do not think many countries on the other side of our gunsights will feel very good about the "war is a last option" remark. I wish the Bush administration diplomacy was less militaristic because of the message it does send to the rest of the world.

In Iran's case I think they need a hard line of diplomacy against us because everything that was alleged about Iraq before the March 2003 invasion was MORE true about Iran. It is a country that has a demonstrated history of supporting terror attacks against the United States. Iran allowed many of the 9-11 attackers through its border without stamping their passports. Iran is engaging in a program that can produce WMDs. Heck, Iran even has a genuine democratic reform movement underway in the country. Iran is the country where (on the basis of articles I have read in the past two years) "death to the United States" is commonly shouted in mosques.

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

I am not sure how much we have been "to the table" with Iran since 1979. Overtures had been recently implied, but I haven't noticed much movement.
I do agree that our diplomacy matched with recent aggression seems to come across as get your nukes now or never. Also our approach with North Korea seems to show the advantages of going "nukular" or at least appearing to.

I'm going to wait to see the complete reasoning before passing judgement. Because of the Iraq invasion and occupation, I'm far too cynical to be objective regarding these statements.

With that being said, I have two major questions:
1. Why wouldn't any country capable of producing nukes not make them given that we've invaded and occupied countries that didn't have them, but negotiated with rogue nuclear powers (i.e. North Korea). If I were the leader of a country, I'd feel irresponsible not trying to protect my country from the United States.

2. Is the fear of giving nukes to terrorist rational? Since when did the trustworthiness of terrorists rise to the point of certainty that they wouldn't use the nukes against the supplier? Meaning, how could the leader of Iran not think the terrorists wouldn't use the nukes against Tehran? The premise of supplying terrorists with WMD is severely flawed and I'm waiting to see if that is Bush's rationale.

Bush can huff and puff all he wants, but it will do no good. We are not a credible nation any longer. We've destroyed our relationship with our allies to the point that questionable regimes can't even rely on our allies or the UN to help keep us in check. So, I think there is a valid need for countries like Iran to protect themselves from the UNited States. By the way, the leaders in Iran are democratically elected. So much for that "democracy in the Middle East" to keep us safe, huh?

I feel the message is unchanged. Nothing new.


Ha oh yeah is that what Iran was doing at the table....negotiating...I think not it was more like..stalling for time.
Here is an interesting read it is excerpts from an interview with Iran's chief nuclear affairs negotiator, and Supreme National Security Council member Hosein Musavian, which aired on Iranian Channel 2 on August 4, 2005.
In which he says.....and I quote....
The IAEA gave us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities. But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan.
Well at least they are giving thanks.
One Iranian official after another has publicly bad talked and basically disgraced the role Europe played in "negotiations". Not only is this evidence that they have no true intention to negotiate with or without Europe..I would imagine Europe might perhaps be a bit weary of playing the enabler again.




When has this not been the message from the US to Iran? And I could think of far worse things the US could say.

Also Iran has been acting as if they felt perhaps the Bush admin would be more lenient regarding her nuclear ambitions..as we were with North Korea. Many believe Iran feels her nuclear objectives or nuclear future would be better served by negotiating with America than she would with Europe.

It's not like Europeans have over a hundred thousand men and women within Iranian reach or as much vested interest in military control of the ME. America does.

So I believe all the bad talk about Europe and the show of the Europeans ineffectiveness is all for show for the Americans. And so Bush has to reiterate his stance and he has to say these things strongly again to Iran..just to let them know that his mind hasn't changed.

Also isn't it interesting the Bush makes this announcement on Israeli TV? I was surprised no one commented on this. This message's most important audience is not Iran it is Israel because America will more than likely enlist the help of her Middle Eastern ally in nuclear plant extermination..Israel.

Saying this on Israeli televison of all places. Let's make Iran even more paranoid.

This is not the right message. Iran is not stupid. This bluff is not going to work. They see how overstretched and bogged down we are. They see what N. Korea is doing. This is awful timing. This is awful diplomacy.

A war with Iran is going to mean a draft. This is why a war is off the table from Bush. We cannot afford it and we lack the man power. This is not a secret. He has just encouraged Iran. He has just given them wiggle room to act paranoid. To cut off any talks.

I cannot understand how 1 man could have such poor judgement.

Bucket has pretty much said what I've been thinking. There is nothing new here. The option hasn't been raised, we simply haven't changed our stance.

Should we change our stance in reaction to Iranian violation of the NPT and subsequent decision to disregard the AIEA Non Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement (BOTH of which it signed on to)? Sorry...you intend to violate all nuclear agreements? In that case, we didn't really mean what we said about their enforcement...


Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations? The US already sanctions Iran, so it's up to Europe now. I don't think there's any chance that China and Russia will back UN sanctions on this. In which case, if Europe wants to draw a line in the sand, it will experience some economic pain and have to cancel some projects. We'll see what happens.

I've got mixed emotions on this one...


1.) I think that Aquilla is correct in saying that it is a section in "Being the President for Dummies." America has become the leading intolerant country on the planet- and in that comes the need to constantly remind people of that. This is the message we have been sending for around, oh... ever. All is pretty much status quo and the president is using his old modus operandi, does that mean it's right? No.

2.) Sure. Offer them the chance to cut it out or we strike... wait, too late.

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?



Countdown, 8-12-05

Gen. McCaffrey seems to be saying that the American military is already stretched, in which case the world might see Bush as something of a paper tiger.

We could, of course, start drafting soldiers, but the current events in Crawford would look mild in comparison to the protests that would result.


Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

Given the answser to the first question, I think diplomacy is a better bet.

That all sounds good, Mrs. P, but, practically speaking, what is the US to do? I suppose further sanctions could be imposed, but I'm skeptical (like you) that China, for example, would participate. The US cannot use military intervention at least in the near future as its hands are full dealing with the insurgency in Iraq. Iran sees an opportunity and is taking it while the US is otherwise occupied. Also, I could imagine Iran removing itself from the NPT protocol -- should it care to be "legal".

Of course, this may all be premature hand wringing according to the Washington Post: Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb. But, then, we are talking about US intelligence: something which tends to get cherry-picked until the desired answer is arrived at.

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?

While I would agree that this is not a new stance presidential wise, I do have concern with the timing. All you have to look at is how different people within the administration are talking about the insurgency is on its last legs and how some military leaders in Iraq are saying there should be a draw down after the elections. As well as, how did the last resort work for with Iraq with the inspectors right before the war from this administration? Some could say that new UN sanctions would not be in the mix from the administration stand point since they didn't believe them to work and take to long.

If this stance is nothing new presidential wise why say it now? and like a couple people noticed on Israeli tv? (I noticed that but was seeing if others would notice it)

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

We need to work with Europe in negotiating to show a untied front as well as to have a united front.

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?
I have to agree with Bucket and Kalabus on this one, why on Israeli TV? Like other have said before, this has been our policy since around '79 so nothing has changed but the "medium is the message" and Bush couldn't have picked a worse medium. I'm sure Iran has never forgot Israel pre-emptively bombed Iraq's Osirak reactor back in 1981. The use of force maybe the last option for the US but not for Israel. It seems to me that if Bush goes on Israeli TV and "reminds everyone of our policy" toward Iran, it's like saying: "Hey, we got your back Israel, we haven't ruled out using force yet." I don't think Iran is worried about the US, they know we're pretty much impotent right now, they're worried about Israel.

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?



Do we really mean what we say about their enforcement? We hold a huge double standard when it comes to the NPT and IAEA. If the violations of Iran are to be “punished” pre-emptively while those of others go unchecked, there is little point in cooperating with the co-opted organization that enforces its own regulations according to Washington’s whim. Iran has no reason to follow the NPT or IAEA because their biggest threat, Israel doesn't. My solution, is to stop being hypocrites. If we want WMDs out of the Middle East, start with Israel. If we want everyone to follow the NPT, I'm sure we can twist Israel's arm and get them to sign.

If we want to get Iran back to the table, we need to convince them that the US and especially Israel will not attack them as long as they abandon their military nuclear program. Then we have to convince them that Israel is not a threat to them, either because Israel is going to get rid of its nukes (ideal) or that the US will keep Israel on a leash. We need to force Israel to sign the NPT and make them abide by it (I'd like to see N.Korea, India, and Pakistan sign on too). We have to make it clear that it's ok for Iran to pursue nuclear power for non-military uses.

Once we hold the same standards for Israel that we do for Iran and ensure them that Israel and the US are not a threat to them if they play nice, then Iran will be willing to listen to us.

Psyclist, there is absolutely no way Israel will decommission its nukes. There is no way we could get India, Pakistan or North Korea to sign the NPT or have them decommission their nukes, for that matter. Iran will never in our lifetimes consider Israel a non-threat. The US has also earned the status of threat to Iran -- you know that whole "axis of evil" thing.

If diplomacy is to work, then Iran must have a carrot of sufficient size coupled with a big stick. Neither carrot nor stick is on the table worthy of Iran's consideration. Finally, Iran has taken the rather unsurprising step of placing their refining facilities deep underground in major population centers.

Practically speaking, there isn't much we will do, military-wise. I don't believe that Israel will be able to do anything either, since we're occupying Iraq now and can't claim ignorance if they were to traverse that airspace (as we did when they bombed the Iraq plant). Besides, the plants are too numerous and spread out. Much more advanced than the Iraqis were. It just won't happen. I think I remember a thread in which we discussed this a while back.

Why should Israel follow the NPT? They didn't sign it. Neither did Pakistan, nor India. Are we twisting their arms?

We didn't twist anyone's arm to get them to sign. We offered incentives. Iran took the incentives, and violated their agreement.

Iran has stated that its goal is annihilation of Israel. Israel has never stated such a goal. Not much else to say here.

Yeah, I remember that one too: Iran getting nukes? So, the only possible venue is diplomacy. Unfortunately, I don't think diplomacy has worked too well for Dubya; he's a War President, afterall.


I've been thinking about this and this is probably worthy of a new debate. I believe that there are two types of parties to the NPT: those that won't build nukes in exchange for incentives and those that have nukes who provide the incentives. I've heard some arguments that the US, for one, has not been completely honoring its part of the bargain. I fear though that we'd derail the specificity of this thread to debate this.

I would agree with Logo that we probably need a new thread.



To me, the NPT is an all or nothing document. Either every country is going to play by the rules or it's worthless. So yes we and all those on the NPT should make every effort to get Pakistan, India, N. Korea, and Israel to sign on. Otherwise, if my enemy keeps building nukes, I'm going to drop off and start building too to protect myself just like Iran did.



I was refering more to the IAEA rather than the NPT here. Iran shouldn't be punished for not complying with the IAEA when Israel doesn't comply either. Why are we threatening sanctions or force? Because Iran violated the NPT? Because they aren't going along with the IAEA? Or because they're building nukes? If it's because they're violating the NPT well, I know a few other countries who haven't followed some treaties and UN resolutions. If it's because they're not going along with the IAEA, well neither is Israel. If it's because they're building nukes, then why can Israel have them and Iran can't? Why can the US make threats and Iran can't? I think we have to get rid of the double standards if we want to have any shot of diplomacy with Iran or anyone in the Middle East.


I don't think Iran is ever going to have a carrot of sufficient size as long as it feels threatened by Israel and the US. Declaring them the "axis of evil" isn't helping as you pointed out. And it's disheartening to think that "Iran will never in our lifetimes consider Israel a non-threat." I believe prior to 1979 Iran and Israel weren't on bad terms. I believe that the people of Iran are trying to shift away from the militaristic, extremist stance. We've discussed the reform movement in Iran before. With the change in Iraq, we see Iraq and Iran starting to come to terms with each other. If we can keep Iraq "pro-US" then this, coupled with the reform movement in Iran, may just be enough to make reform a possibility. If reform is successful then it's possible the Israel will not be seen as a threat (if they are held to the same standards as everyone else.) However, the reform wont happen at all if we don't hold Israel to the same standards to begin with.

Signatories of the NPT are required to swear off the nuclear weapons option and employ safeguards agreements with the IAEA on their nuclear materials. Ergo, Iran is bound to IAEA oversight by its promise and Israel isn't. Furthermore, if they were so determined to have nuclear weapons for defensive purposes they should have abandoned the treaty long ago rather than keeping up the ruse and maintaining the benefits. The US, and the EU and UN for that matter, is within its rights to be disgusted and employ sanctions. Whether that will happen or not remains to be seen. We certainly should not relax our stance by this point in time. I might have chosen a different strategy three or four years ago.

I disagree. Israel signed onto the IAEA in 1957. Thus they are bound by ARTICLE XII: Agency safeguards as laid out in the Statute of the IAEA.

From here



The NPT (and other treaties) only entrust the IAEA as the nuclear inspectorate to make sure the member states are upholding their commitments not to use nuclear programmes for nuclear-weapons purposes. Thus by being a member of the IAEA, Israel is supposed to employ safeguards agreements with the IAEA on their nuclear materials just as Iran is.

The presence of US troops in Iraq and the actual ability of the US military to fight two wars is irrelevant here -- we neither need nor want ground troops in Iran. If it comes to using force we will either warn Iran that we're coming and use bunker busters from bombers on their plants or we'll give Israel the thumbs up to do it themselves. End of problem... beginning of others. I truly hope that we do give them notice so they can at least evacuate their people if they so choose.



No -- it would have been if we hadn't delivered the same message to Iraq and there wasn't such controversy over whether we actually DID use force as a 'last resort'.  As it stands, this message further diminishes the United States' standing in the international community and continues to hurt the country's credibility.




That's the problem. Not really. I'm fully opposed to continuing to pay off countries like Iran and N. Korea for behaving because it only rewards and encourages this behavior. This is why our gung-ho policy in Iraq was soooo stupid -- it has really limited our options in situations that actually ARE of concern to the safety and security of this nation.

"That all sounds good, Mrs. P, but, practically speaking, what is the US to do?" Well, getting rid of 60-or-so of its nukes would be a real show of good will... Since US, not terrorists, is the #1 threat as many people in other countries think...

What so horible will happen, if Iran gets the nuclear bomb? They won't hand it to terrorists, that would mean certain US retaliation, regardless of the state of the military. Besides, they want it for themselves, to have political weight.

No, it is idiotic of Bush to threaten Iran. Getting into a war would defeat the whole purpose of preventing the terrorists from receiving a nuke.

I think Mrs. P and others have a very valid argument that you are not directly addressing. I myself even touched on this earlier and provided a link. Iran with her current form of government is not a reliable and honest negotiator. She has proven this true many many times over. I ask you to address the comments I quoted in my last post...."The IAEA gave us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities. But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan."
Why should Iran be trusted to do anything she says she intends to do regarding nuclear negotiations when she openly admits her ill intentions?

Nuclear arms races are not about fairness. So why view such a subject as this like when I dish out ice cream for the kiddies?

Also Israel is not the topic of this debate nor is she the only one we overlook so please stop trying to allude to some Jewish conspiracy or Jewish power persuasion. Egypt is another one of these exclusive club members ..so why are you not asking for Egypt's public scolding too? Fact is Israel and Egypt can be considered by our nation as friendly, even allies. Feigning nuclear ignorance is one of the many benefits each of these nations enjoy as our friends. Pakistan and India have been forgiven for their past sins too. Having close, cooperative ties with a nation permits you certain compensations.
Yet Iran is not even in the same league when we consider international relationships...so please explain to us all why she should even be held to their standard? What has she done to deserve such consideration?

Personally I think you got it all backwards..I think Iran perhaps is the one that needs to assure us of her attentions and oh I dunno try to look just a little more friendly. Perhaps they could start by putting an end to their government exhibition of hanging homosexuals in public parks.

I'm not denying the fact that Iran is not playing by the rules. They violated the NPT and the IAEA, that's a fact. But how can America hold the moral highground and point the finger at Iran when it allows Israel to get away with violating the IAEA as well? Just because Israel isn't a threat to us or doesn't lie to us? How do you expect any diplomatic options to work if you're not going to be fair? If the US is fair and honest towards all countries and Iran still lies about its intentions, then I feel the US would be justified in its threats.


I don't see how the topic of Israel is not important to this debate. For one, Bush gave his speech on Israeli TV...remember my comment "the medium is the message"? Second, I think the major reason Iran is trying to obtain nukes is because Israel has them. And I don't think any amount of negotiation or diplomatic carrorts are going to work with Iran until Iran sees that Israel has to play by the same rules too. Finally, I've said in other posts that I think all countries should abide by the IAEA, India and Pakistan included. Just because we can trust them and they don't lie doesn't mean they should be given a free pass.


I'm not trying to get Iran off the hook here. But I don't think Iran is going to play nice until they know the US will hold the same standards with Israel. So, we can either sit and wait around for Iran to change or we can put some pressure on Israel and get them to play by the rules. Once Israel signs the NPT, if Iran is still acting up and diplomacy isn't working, then we gotta do what we gotta do.

Pakistan didn't hand it to terrorists either, but they were willing to sell the technology to the highest bidder.

Saying Iran won't hand a nuclear device to terrorists is a tad naive. Iran (unlike Iraq) is a known quantity when it comes to state sponsorship of terror. While you are likely logistically correct that Iran would not formally offer Hezbollah or Hamas a nuclear device, what's to say some well placed radicals in their regime would not assist in the effort?

That being said, using force against Iran would be a very bad idea. I hope Bush actually means it this time when he says "force is a last resort".

Doc

There are different safeguard standards for nations that sign the NPT and those which do not. Non-NPT signatories and NPT signatories are held to different standards because those signatories have committed to this legally-binding contract. If it were all the same there would be no need for the NPT, would there?

As an NPT signatory, Iran received international assistance through the IAEA’s Technical Cooperation (TC) framework. It has received direct assistance for its nuclear program in exchange for committing to IAEA oversight guidelines and relinquishing the persute of nuclear weapons capability. I'm not sure how you propose to make such membership obligatory in the first place. I am also having a hard time following the reasoning that because some countries sign a treaty and have agreed to obligations in exchange for benefits, all other countries must do the same.

I found this information regarding the difference between traditional safeguards and safeguards for NPT signatories:From the online encyclopedia


The purpose of the NPT is to prevent nuclear weapons from ever being used, not to eliminate them. The more armed groups there are, the greater the potential for predatory violence. Predatory violence involving nuclear warheads and unstable governments, Islamic fundamentalists, terrorists, criminals, ethnic separatists, ect, is an almost unimaginably dangerous potentiality. Nuclear weapons in many hands increases the likelihood that they will be used and decreases the ability to deter it. The NPT discourages countries from obtaining such weapons by offering assistance and financial incentives to them for signing in to it.

Iran could have developed nuclear weapons. What it did/does not have the right to do is to continue enjoying the benefits of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a signatory while violating it. As it seems determined to CONTINUE to violate its obligations, I think it's a very bad idea to take this lightly. In fact, it's a bit late in the game to allow them to bow out of the NPT and incur no repercussions unless it agrees to cease and desist immediately. Iran has used IAEA technology and its status as an NPT nation to make these weapons. As I mentioned on Logophage's thread a while back.... The problem with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons isn't necessarily that they will use them. Their open and clear violation of the NPT (as recognized by the IAEA, and by Iran itself) will likely destroy confidence in future nonproliferation enforcement. This will have a destabilizing effect in the Middle east (and likely the world), and will likely compromise other nonproliferation agreements.. Enforcement of the NPT is not possible without enforcers.

Edited to add, later: No one forced Iran to sign the NPT, and no one forced it to REMAIN an NPT signatory. Why would/should Israel be the first country forced to sign it?

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?

Yes, to an extent. I don't think Dubya has ever been a master of wordspeak, and that's harmed him here I think.

Yes, you want to send a message to Iran stating that we view any nuclear program of yours with the deepest suspicion, and if we acquire intel that backs up our suspicions, we will act.

I believe though, that the words "use of force", should not have been used in this case.

That phrase, 1) will bolster the regime's resolve and will encourage them to continue to seek such development and 2) widen the already visable split between the Commander-in-Chief and his top brass.

In other words, the Iranians will most likely see this as a "we dare you" type of comment and will make military commanders question Bush's logic, wondering if the President realizes how stretched the military is with Iraq.

If I'm an Iranian with nefarious intent for nuclear technology, I'm thinkin', "hey, you're gonna be bogged down in Iraq for some time, what are you gonna do in the meantime?"

As far as alternative options are concerned, (and never wanting to leave him out ) OverlandSailor brought up an interesting point regarding economic sanctions. If we do seek them, and they are placed on Iran, what guarantee do we have that they won't make and end-run, circumvent them, and continue to proceede anyways. If we use Iraq and North Korea as examples of using sanctions and diplomacy as a tool.... things aren't looking good.

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

In all honesty, no. Why? Because anyone can see that Iran is determined to persue nuclear technology. That determination, along with the threats that they percieve us and Isreal to be and the idea that they alone will determine their destiny, make any diplomacy very hard.

Do not expect any agreements made between Iran and any part of the international community to not have concessions made in Iran's favor regarding nuclear technology.

So, it becomes a waiting game. Iran is supposedly a decade away from a nuke. So if Iran's pursuit continues, expect the U.S. and other's to keep a microscope on Iran. Because of Iraq, we can't make any take any serious military action against Iran for quite a few years.

So this is the game: For the U.S... Keep an eye on Iran and know what they do when they do it and get the hell out of Iraq as fast as is strategically possible while making steps to re-group for a possible action on Iran.

The game for Iran...proceede with pursuing nuclear power as fast as possible and obtain the ability to make a bomb soon after.

First off the IAEA is not a commitment or a treaty that a nation can violate. You are distorting the meaning of the IAEA in order to make it appear that Israel's commitments are some how equivalent to Iran's when in regards to international politics they are not.

The statue you have quoted is not what each nation independently promises to do..but rather what the agencies power's include. The NPT is a treaty..the IAEA is an agency.

You have also presented a quote from the IAEA statue in what appears to me to be purposeful misrepresentation because all the safeguards listed under Article XII are in fact headed by this statement..
"With respect to any Agency project, or other arrangement where the Agency is requested by the parties concerned to apply safeguards, the Agency shall have the following rights and responsibilities to the extent relevant to the project or arrangement:"
So it is quite obvious that being a member of the IAEA does not automatically place you under required safeguards. It is again obvious in the overview in which you quoted you attempted to prove this commitment of Israel's when there is none.

So again in regards to Iran's commitments towards nuclear non-proliferation and our ability and authority over said commitments... Israel is not a like exchange and you have not proven otherwise.

This is simply an emotive argument you are presenting us with. You hope to appeal to people's emotions about Israel and her allowed "hypocrisy" when in actual fact what Israel is doing and what Iran are doing are simply not the same. This comparison lacks an honest analogy but it is rich in the same old tired mythology you so often see used when discussing Israel.

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?

Ha ha ha! Considering that no one could possibly believe it, I would say, no. The U.S. military is bogged down in Iraq. What is Bush proposing to do? Invade Iran? With what divisions? Lob some missles at a country whose non-belligerance is crucial to the project in Iraq? That would be a winner.

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

I don't particularly care whether Iran goes "back to the table." I am much more concerned about Israel's 200-300 actual nuclear devices than about the distant prospect that Iran might some day construct some.

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?

Yes it is.

Iran is a nation ruled by fundamental religion with a history of supporting fundamental religious terrorists. Its about time the Iranians were made aware of the fire with which they are playing and about time we in the west understood the nature of the threat before us.

This is not Iraq. There is no ambiguity here. Iran has the WMD programme that Iraq never had and the links to terrorism are proven beyond any doubt.


Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

Nope. Nothing we say nor any form of sabctions can make the Iranians play along. They are deteremined to build nuclear weapons and we must face that fact head on.

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?
Iran signed the NPT in 1970. At the time, Iran was ruled by the Shah, an unelected king. Therefore, I doubt the legitimacy of the Iranian government at that time to sign such a treaty. Therefore, I don't think the Iranian people should be legally bound by the promises that some dictator made 35 years earlier.

As far as the use of force is concerned, there are questions regarding America's ability to gain a clear cut victory. With their large population and geographic size, along with antiship missiles along the Hormuz Strait, fighting Iran could turn out to be far more costly than what the Neoconservatives calculate.

I just wonder what fantasy world of limitless American power, backed up by a totally docile electorate at home, a person lives in who thinks that a threat to use force against Iran is militarily credible or politically feasible. Presumably it is the same fantasy world in which the U.S. government is capable of maintaining the occupation of Iraq for the next five years.

U.S. military threats against Iran, against the backdrop of the unsuccessful expenditure of so much of its military power in Iraq, are risible.

Iran has signed many agreements in regards to her nuclear programs. They have not once since the 1979 revolution shown any disapproval of their commitments to the NPT and/or any desire to not cooperate with IAEA. It has only been a recent occurence that Iran has expressed unhappiness with the IAEA's approach and dealings towards their nuclear programs..and by recent I mean this year. And the reason for their souring on this agreement is because they feel...and I support this claim..that what the US and the EU desire or demand of Iran goes against what we agreed on in the NPT.

Iran is permitted under the NPT to peacefully pursue nuclear power. What the EU negotiations essentially sought to invoke was for Iran to agree upon and further restrict her nuclear rights even farther than what the NPT requires.

The right to peaceful use of nuclear technology is one of the integral pieces or stated functions of the NPT.

Could you elaborate more on this, bucket? I haven't run across this position before though it certainly makes rational sense. Which specific rights permitted by the NPT are being restricted? Are both the EU and the US essentially breaking their end of the NPT bargain?

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?

I don't see anything strange about this message. His words don't pack a lot of punch and I don't think the Iranians will be impressed by his statement. (a new front in Iran would be disastrous for the U.S. economy and would therefor also have a profound impact on society. ) It is more political rethoric than a real threat. Although I tend to be critical about the man, I do not think that in this case there is anything wrong with Bush' statement. In the case of Iran, there should always be strong diplomatic pressure. The Iranian ruling elite is extremely unreliable, unpredictable and brutal. Nuclear weapons in the hands of those people will be disastrous.

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

I don't think that this message was meant to get Iran back at the negotiation table. As a said before it doesn't pack a punch. The Iranians know that the U.S. is already seriously weakened because of the War in Iraq. The possibility that the U.S. is willing and capable of starting another war is almost zero. But luckily there are plenty of other ways to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Strong diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions seem to be the right solutions for the problem.

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?

Of course it is appropriate. What should Bush have said, something along the lines of "We really don't like what you're doing but we won't do anything about it"?

The "use of force" is not confined to invasion (which would require large numbers of troops). The US has a fairly idle Air Force ready to drop some special deliveries on these plants, if needed. The US is not powerless, far from it, and Iran should remember that.

That being said, the use of force should remain a final option, not a first option.

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

I would begin economic sanctions. Iran wants to play hardball? Let's see them acquire parts if we make it illegal. Let's see them get experts when we make it harder for them to travel with Iranian passports. Economic sanctions do have an effect and can bring Iran around.

Iran has no history of honoring its bargains, which is unfortunate. They must realize that breaking a treaty has consequences.

I have argued this in the other Iran debate that we have going on here. To just requote the question I proposed that went unanswered before..
I happen to be under the belief that any agreement offered to the Iranians that demands them to stop all enrichment activity totally and forever will fail. If we demand for the Iranians to have to keep to the original agreement of the NPT why shouldn't the EU be expected to do the same? See what it is that the EU demands or wants is a revised agreement to the NPT..they wish to delete that peaceful uranium enrichment clause and have Iran agree to further restrictions of use.
Do you feel that the Iranians have no right to peaceful nuclear power?

Basically from what I have read the E 3 as they have been called..France, UK and DE were offering a deal to Iran which would require her to permanently agree to suspend uranium enrichment activities and in return they would supply Iran with nuclear fuel. There were also various trade agreements attached as well.

The NPT consists of what they refer to as three pillars....nonproliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology

In the NPT itself is states under the article regarding peaceful use...
Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
source

Inalienable right...we no longer view it as such do we? At any rate I do believe Iran is currently in violation and is not in full disclosure of her activities but as I said earlier I also feel that any negotiations that require her to fully and completely relinquish the right to peaceful nuclear power will never be agreed upon.

Ahmadinejad just published a 7000 word document and it quite clearly states the new Iranian government's "20 yr strategy" Regarding nuclear proliferation he says.."Ahmadinejad’s economic policy is aimed at self-sufficiency so that the Islamic Republic would not become dependent on the global system dominated by the United States. Iran will develop its nuclear program the way it sees fit, regardless of whatever the outside world might say."
source

As an interesting note to this discussion it looks like we might be wrong yet again with our Intel on Iran. WaPo Story:


Also there is this:

Why oh why do I feel like I'm sitting back in 2002? I wonder if Bush is just going to take all his WMD speeches and use search/replace to change Iraq to Iran.

This is but one piece of the intel we have on Iran's nuclear program. It involved us convincing Pakistan to also cooperate which she did finally, reluctantly do.
I think if anything this shows success not failure. Success that we are able to still gather such evidence and then determine their rightful source.

The fact remains though that Iran did build it's nuclear facilities IN SECRET and not in compliance with IAEA safeguards. And they have continued to lie and mislead us with the investigation and then admitted that their negotiations with the E 3 were stalling for more time...why?


Wrong year...we went to the UN and requested sanctions on Iraq in 1990 not 2002.

CJ, do you have an explanation for why Iran (who sits on a sea of oil and natural gas) would want to develop a peaceful nuclear power program? Of course they want nuclear weapons and have admitted as much.

The quote does not constitute an admission of a desire for nuclear weapons. Converting yellowcake into uranium hexaflouride is part of a peaceful application of nuclear power as well as a weapons application. The differentiation comes during the next step: centrifugation. Take it up to 3% U235 and you've got fuel for reactors; take it to 90% and you've got bomb-grade material.


This topic concerns the use of force applied to Iran by Mr. Bush as a response to suspicions of WMD. The year is correct.

Actually, 1990 (or thereabouts..maybe 1991) was the year the world discovered that Iraq had a covert, advanced nuclear weapons program, which it had built right under the IAEA's nose. Bucket is right. There is a long history of surreptitious activity here, and they are not in compliance with IAEA safeguards (unlike Iraq, which had been in compliance until it was discovered). The situation is much more analogous to the DPRK.

To clarify I was alluding to starting the process of building a case for war. I read that statement as exactly that and I think that is a pretty sound conclusion considering this administration's past actions.

To numerous posters: My intention in showing this WaPo article was to show that it is clear we still haven't "fixed" our intelligence problems and one of the events driving this discussion has proven false. That doesn't mean that Iran doesn't have a nuclear program, I present no evidence whatsoever in either support or denial of that. It does feel like we are being taken for a ride again and things are just warming up.

CJ, if you are arguing that the case for immediate action is murky, then you have a point. If, however, you are arguing that you don't think Iran does indeed have intentions of building and deploying nuclear weapons, could you please indicate why you think so? As carlitoswhey stated:



What is the driving need for Iran to have a nuclear energy program? Sure, you could argue that any country has that right...and you'd be correct. But that is ignoring the reality of the situation, IHMO. Iran iintends to develope nuclear weapons...I think everyone is in agreement on that. The only question is 'how far along are they?' The second question, which is even more important but I don't hear much about, is 'What would they do with them if they had them?' Is Iran going to launch a nuclear missle attack on someone <insert Israel>? If they did, would we respond in kind? What would the fallout (pardon the pun) from that decision be? Personally, while I would want to avoid that situation if possible, I don't see that as a likely scenario. What country knowingly invites its own annihilation? Nuclear weapons can server a defensive purpose, which, on the surface, shouldn't present a problem. But, what if that is then used in conjunction with conventional attacks? Would a nuclear Iran be likely to invade Iraq, and threaten nuking Israel if we respond? This is a more plausible scenario, in my mind. What are the ramifications of that? Finally, Iran could distribute these weapons to terrorist groups for their use. This is, IMHO, the most plausible scenario...considering the Iran could then also use its nuclear capability to shield itself from conventional retaliation. Would we be willing to respond in kind to this kind of attack?

None of these is desirable scenarios, but, still, I have to wonder how plausible any of them are. The real danger, to me, is basically sword rattling. Pakistan is probably a good analogy. They developed their nuclear capability in response to India's (similar to Iran and Israel, I think). Since then, both sides have escalated their sword rattling, making for some tense diplomatic situations...but neither has done anything much more than that. Nuclear capability gives you a big stick...but also places you in the MAD framework. The two tend to cancel each other out. So, to me, what needs to be determined is how much we are willing to do to avoid such tense diplomatic moments, and whether the cure is worse than the disease. This is definitely a situation, IMHO, where diplomacy is currently by far the best course of action. But it should not be undergone naively....Iran will always be a threat to develop nuclear weapons. Diplomacy cannot change that fact.

I agree with your analysis, although I am a bit more optimistic. I think that Iran wants nuclear weapons not to use them but to show them off, as it were. Even the mullahs realize that the use of nuclear weapons would trigger a retaliatory strike that they cannot afford. They may harbor hopes that they could covertly give a bomb to a terrorist group, but that puts the safety of Teheran into the hands of non-Iranians -- something I doubt that any Iranian would risk. I believe that their intention is to provide insurance against attack. President Bush mulls over the possibility of attacking Iran, but if Iran had the bomb I doubt that he would seriously consider such a possibility -- and that's what the Iranians are thinking: if we have the bomb, the Americans won't be so aggressive towards us. They'll treat us with more respect. We'll be part of the nuclear club, a country to be taken seriously. Nobody will push us around anymore.

Sounds like rational thinking to me.

Mrs Pigpen, you too have misunderstood Cube Jockey's statement, which he reiterated and clarified in a subsequent post. His reference to 2002 was a reference to Mr. Bush's thinking, not Saddam's activities.

If you have any proof that the Bush administration is planning on requesting the UN to pass a resolution that will set the stage for military actions in Iran rather than economic sanctions then please share with us. Is there any evidence of any kind that the resolution the US and others will be seeking against Iran in the UN will present Iran with "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" as was set forth in 2002 with Iraq?

2002 was hardly the first time the US brought Iraq to face UN scrutiny. I think it is inaccurate to ignore this fact.

How many UN resolutions are there demanding for Iran to disarm and cooperate with inspections? Answer: None. How many resolutions were there passed by 2002 demanding this of Iraq ? Answer 17.

Somehow I think sanctions..as with Iraq..is what the US will seek in the UN. War would be the total failure of all diplomatic outlets and we have not yet even begun to exhaust those.

With Iraq it took over 12 yrs to materialize...seventeen resolutions and twelve years.
Claiming the international forum is the fast path to war is ridiculous.

If you feel that the two situations are like comparisons ( I don't support this theory at all) how are you justifying your omittance of the actual time lines and their correlated events in history?


EDITED TO ADD...
Hobbes if you are curious as to what Iran's new objectives or strategy plan is ..the newly elected president just published apparently a 7000 word manifesto on just that. I linked to an article discussing it in an earlier post. Here is the link again if you are interested....
Iran’s Agenda for the World

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?

No, it is already well known that the U.S. would use military force, saying so only helps the hardliners in Iran solidify their power base. When President Bush declared Iran part of the "Axis of Evil", progressives in Iran, who at the time were making gains, were then removed from positions of influence. The President had unwittingly given the hardliners the tool they needed to defeat the progressives, fear of the United States.

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

Why does Iran's government insist on building their nuclear power facilities? Because they need the power, but more importantly now, to demonstrate to their own people that they will not be ruled over by the West. The President should let them know that the U.S. would be willing to assist in the development of alternative energy sources. If they are willing to develop other sources with U.S. assistance, then rather than imposing additional sanctions against Iran, the offer to normalize trade relations between the U.S. and Iran should be made. Under normal trade agreements. The U.S. would be better able to monitor the activities within Iran and have a better chance of mitigating the influence of theocratic forces on neighboring Iraq.


[/quote]