With his defeat of a somewhat pro-western leader in Rafsanjani, the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as leader of Iran, we've seen some interesting things occur these last months of 2005. The U.S. warned Iran not to resume efforts to perfect uranium enrichment. What did the government of Iran do?, they blew off the warning and have resumed nuclear activities. IAEA seals preventing the use of equipment in nuclear facilities and labs in Iran have been broken and there is a consensus that yes, Iran is up to something in conducting nuclear research. Ahmadinejad defends the resumption of nuclear research stating that Iran has just as much of a right to use nuclear energy as any western nation does. Ahmadinejad has also banned western music in Iran and has ratcheted up anti-Israel rhetoric and making controversial statements about the holocaust.

The Pope has criticized Iran in his new year's address. There are also trial balloons being floated out to the public from credible sources stating that the United States and NATO are moving to strike Iran.

Questions for debate:[B]

1.)What should the U.S. and NATO do to get Iran to stop nuclear production?

2.)Can Iran be monitored internationally to ensure that only civilian uses of nuclear technology be used?

3.)To what extent does any nation have a "right" to nuclear resources? By what right should the U.S. decide the matter for other countries?

1.)What should the U.S. and NATO do to get Iran to stop nuclear production?
First of all, what can the U.S. and NATO do to stop Iran's nuclear production? The US is bogged down right now in Iraq and NATO has never done any military action without significant participation of the US. If Iran were to pose a threat, any other country in that region could deter Iran without the US and NATO getting involved.

3.)To what extent does any nation have a "right" to nuclear resources? By what right should the U.S. decide the matter for other countries?
Does the United States have the authority to decide that matter for other countries? Bush wants to push his "Democracy" on other countries, but it's only the United States that has the right to bear arms.

As unsympathetic as I am to the Fundamentalist regime in Iran, it should be pointed out here that the current, ultra-conservative leader was, apparently, elected by a majority of the voters. This makes for a very different situation from Iraq. It's difficult to see Ahmadinejad as the enemy of his own people in the way that it was easy to see Saddam Hussein as the enemy of the Iraqis. (This does not mean, in any way, that I approve of the Ahmadinejad administration, nor that I would not welcome reformist leaders in Iran.) It is also difficult to see Iran in the role of a "rogue nation" in the way that North Korea (for one example) might be seen. Whether we like it or not, Ahmadinejad's reprehensible and provocative statements denying the Holocaust and denying the right of Israel to exist in its present state have the support of many, in Iran and elsewhere. What I am leading up to is the fact that it is going to be even more difficult to convince the world that an invasion of Iran is justified. It is going to require very strong evidence indeed that the development of nuclear weapons is taking place.

1. Unless there is some sort of enforceable international agreement that nuclear energy technology is going to limited to nations where it already exists, or to nations which meet some sort of international guidelines (representative government, human rights, and so on), it's difficult to see what can be done to limit the spread of this technology. It's very hard to keep people from using a technology very soon after it is discovered.

2. With this in mind, it is probably a good idea to try to ensure that nations which are developing nuclear energy are using it for peaceful purposes. If Iran will agree to international inspection, this may reduce the possibility of nuclear weapon production. I am pessimistic about the ability of humanity to avoid the spread of nuclear weapons, but it is very much worth a try.

3. Ahmadinejad, for all his flaws, makes a case that Iran should have the right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy. If he is sincere in his statement that Islamic law (which is the basis of the Iranian government and its laws) forbids the manufacture, stockpiling, or use of nuclear weapons, he may sincerely wish to develop a source of energy for his nation without threatening other nations. Of course, the rest of the world cannot go on trust alone, and this sincerity must be verified.

(It's a sad irony of the nuclear age that powerful nations don't have to put up with weaker nations questioning their motives when it comes to nuclear weapons. I wonder how the United States government would react if the United Nations voted to inspect all American nuclear power plants to make sure they were not being used to develop secret weapons? A rhetorical question, since the USA would simply refuse to co-operate.)

What depresses me most about this difficult situation is the eagerness for war shown by some who commented on the last link offered in the original post on this thread.



(All errors in punctuation and spelling are as they appear in the original comments. I have censored out the one minor obscenity.)

1.)What should the U.S. and NATO do to get Iran to stop nuclear production?

Everything, up to and including the use of force.


2.)Can Iran be monitored internationally to ensure that only civilian uses of nuclear technology be used?

Only if the Iranians cooperate.


3.)To what extent does any nation have a "right" to nuclear resources? By what right should the U.S. decide the matter for other countries?

I don't think 'rights' have anything to do with nuclear resources. There are no 'rights' when it comes to such things.

Whats paramount is the safety and security of the nation, whether it be Iran, the USA or any other. The important question for the Iranians must be, will having nuclear resources, whether they be solely energy or include weapons, make Iran a safer nation?

I cannot see any argument that suggests Iran, sans nuclear resources, is in any threat from any other country so the answer to the question must be no. Iran will not be safer as a result of having nuclear resources.

Why not?

Because Iran is perceived to be a threat to regional stability as well as the continued existance of the state of Israel. From a European perspective, nuclear Iran is even a threat to Europa and I cannot see any argument that, in any way justifies thexistence of such a threat.

Any nation that feels threatened has the right to act to counter that threat. Iran, also has that right. However, nations must also bear the consequences of their actions and if Iran continues to pursue its nuclear ambitions regardless of how these are perceived in other nations, then it carries sole responsibility for any actions undertaken against it by other nations seeking to safeguard their own survival.

As things stand now, the USA, Israel and the NATO nations are in full justification for pre-emptive military strikes against Iran's nuclear installations and according to this site the beginnings of such action may already be underway...

Firstly, a thing or two about atomic weapons programs.

Very soon the US and the west is going to have to realise that it cannot keep trying to stuff the atomic toothpaste back in the tube. The day is changing, and our perception is going to have to change with it. In 1945, atomic weapons were a near-impossible engineering and scientific task, beyond all but the two or three most industrialised and most sophisticated countries on the planet, and even them only with a vast and enormous output of resources. The atomic trigger, the atomic sheath and the enriched uranium were impossible feats back then, and this more than anything else is what allowed the atomic club to maintain its small number of members.

Those days are long gone, the atomic trigger and sheath are now within the engineering capability of even middling power nations, and enriched fissile materiel is available from a dozen different sources, including as natural byproducts of several atomic power stations sold by the first world to the third in the 1970s and 1980s. The idea that the West can somehow maintain its stranglehold on atomic weapons has become laughable. At the moment the world has six declared nuclear powers: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India and Pakistan, one undeclared nuclear power: Israel, one former nuclear Power: South Africa and one unconfirmed nuclear power, North Korea.

However if you were to expand that list to include nations that could be nuclear in three months if the wanted to, suddenly there are dozens more: Canada, Japan, Italy, Spain, Germany, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Egypt, Ukraine, Brazil, Mexico, and the list continues.


These nations do NOT have nukes because they choose not to, a ‘choice’ that would very reasonably evaporate if they suddenly found themselves targeted by a stronger power like the United States.


Secondly, this might be one of those times when the ‘shining example’ set by the US comes back to haunt them. If Iran does pursue nuclear weapons, then they are in violation of the NPT, which they signed in good faith.

However the main plaintiff of this violation would be the United States, which has shown in the past 5 years that is no problem at all ignoring treaties which it signed in good faith as long as it is in the national interest. This ‘example’ has been noticed by the world, and severely lessens the moral authority for the US to complain when other nations act in exactly the same manner.

Just under Bush Jr., the US has violated the ABM treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the NAFTA agreement just to name a few, as well as possibly violating the NPT itself in assisting Israel with its atomic program, though these allegations are unproven.



Iran’s current leader (as has been mentioned) was elected democratically by the people of Iran. He is no brutal dictator like Hussein, and the citizens of Iran, including the women, enjoy comparatively more freedom then citizens do in other nation to which the US is allied, such as Saudi Arabia.

Iran is certainly not a free country, the religious powers hold sway there and have the capacity (and have done so) to VETO progressive legislation. However, the country’s population recently CHOSE to vote out of office a moderate reformer, and replace him with a hardliner. This is democracy in action, or at least a version of it.

While Iran’s comments about Israel are shocking and dismaying, they are only unique in that they were publicised so much. Similar statements come out of many of the Arab Gulf States. Last month a Saudi Arabian court sentenced a teacher to 750 lashes (an effective death sentence) for teaching that the Jews were people and Israel had a right to exist in some form.

Saudi is also the country in the middle east that supports terrorists more than EVERY OTHER middle eastern nation combined. Explain to me why they are such staunch US buddies again?


Lastly, two practical issues. In the end, though there was a lot of sabre rattling and anger, there was still a movement in the Middle East in support of the deposition of Saddam, because he was a mass murderer and a Baathist. So while there have been massive demonstrations in the Middle East against the US for the invasion of Iraq, most of the local national governments took it pretty quietly. That will NOT happen is the US invades ANOTHER Middle Eastern country, this time one led by a democratic leader with no blood on his hands. The Middle East will not stand by and watch as another state becomes a US hegemon.

And then there is the issue of what the US could do, even if it wanted to. Right now the US cannot even meet its existing operational requirements. Soldiers in Iraq have huge backlogs of replacements, equipment and vehicles awaiting which the government is struggling to provide. The US is only able to maintain its bwlow-necessary troop levels at what they are by abandoning deployments around the world, such as Germany and Japan, and by issuing stop-loss orders to keep existing troops from rotating out. Recruitment is down, and Iraq is still bloody. There is no conceivable way the US could get involved in another conflict right now, let alone with Iran.

Not to mention that Iran is not a tough nut to crack. Its army is smaller than Hussein’s 1990 army, but it is more technologically advanced, it has integrated air defence, and Mainstay C&C aircraft, something Iraq never had. In addition, the quiet limited assistance Iran is sending to Iraq, in the way of equipment, but no men, would have the gloves taken off. Iraq would destabilise even further, and rather than two battlefields, Iraq and Iran would merge into one, and possibly Afghanistan as well. Iran’s troops are not conscripts, fighting for a tyrant out of fear, they are volunteers, well trained and equipped, fighting out of nationalism and pride for their democratic government. The Mass surrenders in Iraq would likely not reoccur.


Iran is a non-issue right now. Iraq is still a bloody sore which has dragged in $450 BILLION dollars US. It is starting to be questionable if the US can afford its current war, let alone another one. And that’s only measured in dollars, not in manpower and public support. How many Americans would welcome widening the Middle Eastern conflict right now by attacking a sovereign state which has done nothing to provoke it, and which has certainly acted better than the infamous US ally and Bush Jr. friend, Saudi Arabia?

As much as I do recognize NATOs role in defending it's members from the obvious and warranted military threat Iran is, I don't feel it has come down to this yet. And I am curious as to why you separated the two...the US and NATO? If NATO was called into action on regards to Iran by her member states wouldn't the US be acting within and aligned with NATO not removed and separated from her?

I also feel right now the focus of dealing with Iran is still a matter of the UN.


No obviously the Iranian gov. currently refuses to allow this even tho it is required of them.


I think in the case of viewing or discussing nuclear resources or technology as a right is our own doing because of the language of the NPT. The NPT does define and separate rights of nuclear resources/technologies from those of nuclear armament it just requires that those rights be carried out and implemented in a specific way to allow monitoring and oversight. Iran refuses the latter and probably believes her rights extend into the weaponry applications too.



Victoria I must admit that I find much of what you said to be really really off in regards to analysis. First the idea you have that Iran is differentiated from the likes of Saddam Hussein's Iraq because they held an election is no where near any sort of distinction between good and evil as you believe it is. Saddam held elections too. Iranian elections are not democratic and even if they were...would it matter?

And you neglect the important fact that the Presidential role in Iran is the second highest ranking political office ..not the first. The highest ranking political figure in power in Iran is not elected by the people and has been in his position for over 16 years and he in fact is the one who confirms the presidential election. Despotic and tyrannical rule comes in many forms.


Also I am curious as to why you feel the viewing of Iran as a rogue state like North Korea is so difficult for you? Just because anti-semitic views are strong in the Middle East by no means authenticates or strengthens their value. In fact that is one of the most major obstacles to the region and the current Iranian government is a major proponent of this past failed and rogue view of the world.

And lastly I think you underestimate the support around the world..most specifically between Western nations..for holding Iran accountable for her refusal to uphold the NPT agreement and the importance of NPT's objectives. I don't feel that America is currently in any such position that requires her to have strong proof and a quick tongue in regards to convincing others how dangerous Iran is. They all already agree. Even the French left demands for all political ties to Iran to be severed. This is not a difficult conversion anyone needs to make....for once most of the world is in agreement on this one.


What an absurd equivalence to make. You honestly believe the rest of the world's governments view America as they do Iran? You can use as many extreme left views to make such assertions but the reality is America is an ally in the world of treaties and alliances...where is Iran in all that international courtship!? Nowhere.

And again you make the same mistake as Victoria, you have greatly underestimated and overlooked the international support and desire for Iran to comply to international standards. If Iran is in non-compliance of the NPT it will certainly not be the US who is the "main plaintiff of violation" it will be the UN and even more specifically it will be European nations who are currently leading the campaign demanding Iran complies to international norms. From the Swedish parliament ceasing all bilateral contacts with the Iranian parliament and asking others to follow their lead, to the EU's comments about sanctions, Europe is no longer lending her support or consideration to the Iranian government and unquestionably is reacting to Iran's international polices with urgency and priority..far more so currently than any other nation or collection of nations.

And Vermillion I must admit I am disturbed by your claims and support to the ideal that the Iranian government is not brutal nor a dictatorship.

I implore you to investigate this subject matter more and inform yourself better about the issue you discuss here with us today. From the capital hangings of young men for being homosexual, to state issued massacres of thousands for their political beliefs, journalists tortured, murdered and sentenced to death and bloggers being imprisoned Iran is most certainly in the practice of political brutality and despotic actions.

Firstly, I never said, nor implied, nor came close to saying, that the world's governments view America as they do Iran. Not even close.

I did however point out that the entire 'case' such as it is for attacking Iran rests on the fact that they MAY have violated a treaty. I also pointed out that the current president of the United States seems to have no problem at all with violating international treaties when the mood takes him.

Like it as not, that makes any argument about 'treaty violations' on the part of Iran made BY the United States somewhat hollow. America is an ally in the world of Treaties and alliances? Well, how many international treaties have the US and Iran each violated in the last 5 years? How many nations have Iran and the US invaded each in the last 5 years? How many foreign citizens have the US and Iran killed each in the last 5 years?

Yes, obviously there is little moral equivalency between the US and Iran (and I never stated to the contrary), from our perspective. But from the perspective of citizens of the Middle East, one can understand how that might not be so obvious.


I am aware of the pressure on Iran to comply with the NPT, and how strong it is in Europe. But this thread has revolved so far on the possible use of military force to 'back up' that treaty, and my post was directed at the difficulties, both moral and practical, with attempting to use force in this manner, in this case.




And I am disturbed by your being disturbed and condescending with regards to something I never said, and never came close to saying. That is the second time out of two points you have rebutted something I never said, please be more careful about this, in particular if you are going to suggest people 'educate themselves' based on your errors.


I am well aware of the nature of the Iranian government, however what I said is that the current president is not a brutal dictator of the same cloth as Hussein, he was elected into office, and that Iranian citizens hold relatively more freedoms than such other "buddy" nations in the region such as Saudi Arabia.

Yes, Iran is brutal and unpleasant compared to any Western nation, almost all of whom don't execute people for any reason (with one notable exceptions). But then I never said otherwise.

Vermillion stated my position pretty well so I won't be redundant and repeat it. Despite the truth of the facts that he points out, however, I think this reckless administration may well be contemplating an air strike on Iranian nuclear sites. The German and Turkish press accounts about US diplomatic preparations are one source of evidence for this. Scott Ritter has been saying much the same thing for six months. If this radical administration does attack Iran in another "preventive" war without Congressional action that can be considered a declaration of war, it will be the culmination of the end of our republic. If he does receive such authorization, it will be a sure sign that the US has become the main threat to the peace of the world. Here is a Counterpunch Article by a former chief official with the CIA and a former CIA political analyst that makes the case that there are far more important issues at stake than the threat of Iran becoming a member of the nuclear club. This is a threat that both the article and I have acknowledged as real and a threat that has been increased by the intransigence of the Bush Administration.

If moral equivalence is not too common in your views of America and Iran and not one of the main basis of your argument then why are you asking us to keep judging and analyzing each nation's actions as equivalents? And to compare and account for stats and numbers? Why do you require the reader to ask if America has the ability to display moral superiority because of her own similar and equivalent adherence to international treaties?
Which in effect is arguing that the US is not only morally incapable of holding any nation responsible to treaties that are safeguarded by the UN, but it seems you also wish to portray that she even has no right. Need I remind you the US is a voting and permanent member of the UNSC the exact body that would in fact make the decision on the ifs and hows Iran should be held accountable.


And why all these sly comments and off hand remarks meant to question or place doubt on America's authority to judge Iran? I don't believe your assertion that you are not trying to find little in common ground or comparisons to Iran's dangers internationally to that of America's. In fact I believe you are alluding to the idea that America is more dangerous and even less respectful of the international community than Iran.

I made more than two points and the main argument I had against your comments was how I disagreed with your analysis of the world's reactions and concerns to Iran's new government's foreign policy, most specifically Europe's. I was hoping you would address my points on this instead of claiming you and I are in some sort of agreement and that you are just more focused on military recourse because when reading your argument I don't comprehend it as such. You claimed the only plaintiff would be the US...I interpreted this word plaintiff to mean someone who would take action legally, not physically. If you were hoping to set forth the idea that militarily, not legally, US actions on the international stage would be independent then why use this word plaintiff?

I think when we have our one and only Danish member of ( that would be you moif) in favor of ratcheting up the aggression in our demands that Iran adheres to her international commitments then this argument you have that America is once again appearing to be in support of a very dangerous, unilateral and unpopular means of approach is fairly unfounded.


Oh is that all..is that the only thing that has everyone worked up? Why wasn't it then as big of a deal when Pakistan or India went nuclear? Why do you think states like North Korea or Iran seem to bother us more?

And attacking Iran is taking it to the extreme. There has been no case of any sort proposed by this government or any other that you, or I or any of us are aware of. We are still a long way from that taking place. But again I comprehend more in your meaning. You seem to wish to put in the reader's mind the idea that perhaps that is all America needs..just a possible, unsupported case of minor disregard for a piece of paper. That the US is so unpredictable and warmongering that such trivial things much like forgetting to pay the electric bill on time will set her off. For all your recognition for Iran's "democratic" government you should be more than aware that the US military operates within a democracy too. You should remember that without the American people's support America won't attack anyone, and that Iraq had over 70% of American's support. I know many here like to portray this nation as if it was held hostage by a mad tyrannical angry man..the truth is Iraq was a desired foreign policy. We are not a nation out of control lead blindly and ignorantly through the dark. We move forward and choose our actions with purpose and reason.


So are you now saying your past comments have been your attempt to portray and evaluate this issue from the eyes of someone other than yourself...but instead a citizen of the Middle East? Which citizens of the Middle East support Iran in any regards let alone her rights to nuclear armament? Which citizens of the Middle East feel Iran's position and alignment in and on the international stage are equivalent to that of America's? And if so many citizens of the Middle East recognize Iran's argument and feel her rights to possess nuclear technology as she so desires are warranted then why are these citizens not asking for their own nuclear rights to be upheld too?

When I made the comments that I felt the world was in agreement about the dangers of Iran becoming a nuclear power I was including even those nations in the Middle East.

How exactly does technological advances change our perception of nuclear weapons?

The ability to make these infernal devices does not, in any way, bear upon the motives of those making them. Simply being able to make a nuclear weapon does not give one the right or obligation to do so. Any one who makes such a weapon in this day and age must be regarded with suspicion, especially nations like Iran who are characterised by oppression, religious fundamentalism and hostility to other countries.


Perhaps.

But so what? Iran is not being targetted without justification by the USA. Any and all attention focused by the USA and the rest of the democratic west is only a response to the aggression and hostile attitude that has characterised Iranian politics since the 1970's. Iran would be as safe as any other nation if it were not laying a deliberate course against the peace and stability of the middle east and thus, the rest of the world.


Again, so what?

The USA does not set a trend for the rest of the world. Using one nations violations of treaty's does not justify anything and from a European perspective it carries no weight at all.


Again and again, so what?

Two wrongs do not make a right. You can't just point to the discretions and crimes of others and say, well they are so bad so we can be too.

The bottom line is, every nation on Earth has the right to undertake measures to defend itself. Iran has made a choice which puts it indirect conflict with the USA, Europe and most of the Middle East. It doesn't matter what justifications they used to get to this point, the fact is, they went forward with open eyes, well aware of how their actions would be viewed.

Iran's actions can only be viewed as a challenge. A defiance to the rest of the world, to the democratic western nations in general and to Israel in particular. Given their leaders stance, given their recent elections and given the history of Iran, then it is utterly inconceivable that Iran does not pose a direct threat to the West.


Democracy by itself does not justify anything and if a population votes for a hard line course then that population must face the consequences of its decision.


Saudi Arabia is not persuing nuclear 'resources'.


Well, obviously because the USA believes it can still influence Saudi Arabia by diplomatic and political means, something which Iran has consistently resisted.


I don't believe invasion is being considered.

Rather I think the USA, possibly with Turkish and/ or Israeli help might conduct limited military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. I see nothing to indicate the USA has any desire to invade Iran.


Destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure would not require large amounts of manpower.


In order for Iran's military to engage the US forces, they would have to move out of Iran.
The US forces might suffer losses, but the Iranian military is nothing special and out gunned and out flanked by America's overwhelmining military superiority the Iranians would be wiped out. Their only advantage is to hold the ground they already have. Only in defending Iran can they stay strong but then they are limited to whether or not America commits ground troops to attacking Iran.


Well, first off, I should point out that we have two Danes at AD. The other being Carlsen.

Secondly, I should add that I don't speak on behalf of Europe

Apart from this, yes I think we should be harder on Iran. In effect we are being threatened. With Saddam Hussein gone, there is no nation that threatens Iran so just who are these nuclear ambitions meant for?

If Iran's intentions are truly peaceful then lets see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issue a public apology to Israel.

Let's not take the idea of a military strike on Iran lightly, even if the US and NATO win. If they do possess enough sunburn missiles, Iran could inflict heavy casualties on the US Navy and halt the shipment of oil from the Middle East, dragging the entire world into a Depression.

1.)What should the U.S. and NATO do to get Iran to stop nuclear production?

At this moment, they should do nothing. Like Bucket, I believe that this is currently a problem that should be handled by the UN if the IAEA is unable to make progress in ensuring the transparency of Iran's nuclear program.

2.)Can Iran be monitored internationally to ensure that only civilian uses of nuclear technology be used?

This is exactly what should be happening, but this can only occur with Iran's cooperation.

3.)To what extent does any nation have a "right" to nuclear resources? By what right should the U.S. decide the matter for other countries?

Aside from political posturing, I don't see that the US is making this decision for Iran.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty gives its signatories the right to use nuclear resources for civilian purposes, but their activities must be declared. Iran does have the option of withdrawing from the treaty if it intends to persue a nuclear program, but, of course, there are both scientific and political benefits in not doing so.

The problem is that for a significant period of time, Iran did persue its nuclear research in secret, a clear violation of the NPT. Their credibility is reasonably in question, and while the NPT allows for the enrichment of uranium, Iran can only expect to persue their goals if they are willing to fully cooperate with the IAEA.

At this point, it is absolutely reasonable for the other member nations to be skeptical regarding Iran's intentions.

As far as the talk of military action is concerned, I don't believe it should be an option at this point. There's currently room for negotiation, and that's the policy that should presently continue to be persued.

I have made it clear that I consider Iran a proliferation threat. However, I find it dismaying that debaters on both sides of the confrontation issue continue to assume that Iran is clearly in violation of the NPT. It is not! When the US put pressure on Russia to prevent that country from providing Iran with nuclear enrichment equipment (which Iran was entitled to under the NPT), Iran developed enrichment technology in secret. Eventually, it publicly revealed that it had done so and allowed the IAEA to inspect and monitor all of their nuclear program. Iran also voluntarily put a hold on upgrading uranium while discussion were held with the E3 powers. The United States grudgingly supported these talks but refused to participate or offer any concessions on sanctions and formal security guarantees to Iran. Since these were the major objective or the Iranians in the E3 negotiations, the talks broke down and Iran resumed its uranium processing but with full access for the IAEA to inspect its facilities.

Don't take the word of this leftists. Read this Article by Pat Buchanan, a conservative, which substantially agrees with my position.



For an even better review of the events that have led to the current confrontation, see this Gordon Prather Article.

Iran, in the past, was clearly in violation of the NPT. Those violations have effected their credibility, and it's their responsibility to restore that credibility.

Per the IAEA as of November 2005:

The central purpose of verification is to build confidence. Our experience has shown that, in cases where proliferation concerns have created a confidence deficit, even the provisions of the additional protocol may not be adequate. In such cases, additional "transparency measures" may be required.

A recent case in point is the IAEA´s verification work in Iran. Over the past 2½ years, we have compiled a detailed picture of most aspects of Iran´s past and current nuclear programme. But given that the programme was concealed for nearly 20 years, and that a number of open questions remain, the responsibility rests with Iran to provide, if needed, additional transparency measures - beyond the confines of the safeguards agreement and additional protocol - to enable the Agency to resolve these questions, and to provide the required assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran´s nuclear programme.

It's true that Iran has cooperated in some areas, but that doesn't mean that all of the questions are answered, and if the IAEA is not prepared to say that Iran is free and clear, I'm certainly not. I don't think it's anything to be dismayed about. It's just an exercise in caution which comes from a history by Iran that was not forthcoming.



If you read the actual reports from the IAEA during those time periods, you'll see that Iran has made progress, but there have also been outstanding issues.

November 2004
November 2003

As long as Iran continues to work towards transparency, talk of physical force seems to be going overboard, but I agree with IAEA that Iran should suspend its activities as a cofidence building measure until they can complete their assessment of the situation. Had Iran followed the rules of the treaty throughout, this wouldn't be necessary, but they didn't.

Sorry, Cyan, I overlooked your response to my remarks.

I don't find anything in your reply that I particularly disagree with other than the statement that Iran is definitively in violation of the NPT. Neither the quote nor the referenced IAEA report state that. They talk about the need for "additional "transparency measures" being required for confidence building - not NPT violations.

What I am arguing is that the confrontation with Iran is shaping up as another self inflicted crisis by the Bush Administration characterized by double standards. Their failure to engage in negotiations with Iran and their failure to offer concessions to the Iranians through the Europeans on sanctions and security guarantees has helped to bring us to this impasse. The eagerness of the Neocons to confront Iran over possible nuclear weapons development from the beginning of this administration should be contrasted with their failure to fully fund efforts to secure former Soviet nuclear weapons and materials, their kid gloves treatment of Pakistani proliferation, and their willingness to build new classes of nuclear weapons and threaten their use even against non nuclear countries. One might also question their real commitment to lowering the possibility of nuclear proliferation when they are willing to seriously consider the promotion of a nuclear industry with renewed capacity to breed and extract plutonium and market it internationally. Is it not fair to question whether the policy makers in this administration are more interested in a justification for confrontation with Iran than in finding a way to assure the non proliferation regime?

Here is Another Article that makes the case much as I would.

It seems TedN5 that your argument is based on semantics or interpretation. I think it is completely within reason to interpret the IAEA's resolution as evidence that Iran is in violation.

Failure of Iran to fully comply with the past resolutions of the IAEA, key concerns requiring clarification by Iran and continuation of Iran's outstanding disclosure of information and access all of which account for non-compliance. They have not complied. Will they? Do they have any intention to do so? At some point in time efforts and requests for compliance must run out..what you interpret as a lack of violation in in my mind a suspension of violation in hopes of coming up with a diplomatic solution.

Iran will officially be considered in violation when she is referred to the UN. That is when we have collectively chosen to do something about her violation but I don't think it means until then she is following through with her commitments. It has now been over 2 years of negotiatiions with Iran over this issue.

1.)What should the U.S. and NATO do to get Iran to stop nuclear production?

If it is true that Iran is proliferating nuclear energy for the purposes of building a weapon then I believe that we should do everything in our power to stop that including sanctions, strategic bombing and any other use of force that might stop an impending nulcear holocaust. We're not dealing with a nation bent on it's own protection. We are clearly dealing with a power who has advocated the use of nuclear force to "wipe" a country "off the map" simply for the purposes of eradication and murder. We have a responsibility to see to it that powers like this never actually accquire the goods to carry out their dirty deeds. Such a goal is evil to its' core and those who wish to see it carried out must be stopped.


2.)Can Iran be monitored internationally to ensure that only civilian uses of nuclear technology be used?

No. We already know that they are close to getting a nuclear weapon. If international monitoring were working they wouldn't have gotten as far as they have now without having flagged everyone's radar.


3.)To what extent does any nation have a "right" to nuclear resources? By what right should the U.S. decide the matter for other countries?

Nations don't have rights in reality. I live in the real world and I wouldn't ask one nation to sacrifice its' security for the sake of consistency within an international argument, so I won't pretend that I believe that every nation has inalienable rights to protecting itself. I will say that the US has a responsibility to protect its' citizens just the same as her citizens have the responsibility to protect her. If Iran decides that they have the same responsibility and that that responsibility includes blowing up Israel or the US for whatever reason they claim for justification then we'll have a war on our hands. That's how wars happen. The US must be sure that it isn't the country that can be seen as forcing Iran into starting the conflict, if that happens then a war could still be fought and won but international support will be hard to get and in a war with Iran the US must have wide international support as well heavy assistance, unlike the Iraq war where we are fighting with minimal assitance from a wide array of countries.

To begin with I have to address the argument stated by Vermillion and others that Iran is a democracy. By the broad definition of democracy that is true, for it states that a democratic government is elected by its people. But already Aristotle knew two kinds of government elected by the people.
Today there are still two kinds. On the one side liberal democracies like France, Germany, and [astonishingly] the USA. On the other side there are countries like Iran and Belarus. Illiberal Democracies, for they also derive their legitimacy by elections. But that is the extent of it, the rule of law and guarantee of human or civil rights is rare to non-existent. So to be on the same page, let us not consider Iran to be democratic, for it sure is not in our western [liberal] understanding of democracy.

Next thing. Here we have the problem of Iraq again. Iraq, despite its despotic leadership, happened to be a stable and predictable player and a rather containable problem as far as WMD are concerned. The obsession of the current government with Iraq led to the use of the exact same reasons in its argumentation for the decision of invasion that is now needed for Iran. WMD, danger to the world, no respect for human [jewish] life. The last point sounds frightingly similar to my countries shameful 20th century history.
The difference to Iraq however is the extreme danger that Iran truly represents. Despite its validity, the public is already immunized to this argumentation, and will seriously question a decision to escalate the situation on the same grounds.

The current situation - [What should the U.S. and NATO do to get Iran to stop nuclear production?]:
The current efforts need to focus on establishing a common position against Irans plans to circumvent the NPT and build a nuclear chain without supervision. That would clearly entail the danger of an Iranian program to the development of the bomb.
Therefore, the Bush administration, and I am with Pat Buchanan on this one, needs to get over the grudge it holds with Teheran and start to begin talks.

2.)Can Iran be monitored internationally to ensure that only civilian uses of nuclear technology be used?
The problem is that Iran cannot not be denied the peaceful use of nuclear energy [I don't even want to start a debate about the justification of such a measure, most likely worse than the 1441 resolution basis], though it must comply with the IAEA. Iran has shown that it would consider this a reasonable trade [at least before the elections last year], -of course- linked with some demands like WTO accession.
To push for sanctions by bringing this to the UN Security council is a very risky business, I am sure a resolution could not pass there [most importantly due to China's reliance on Iranian resources and it's veto power]. However, under such conditions Iran would discontinue all cooperation, consequently leaving no more room for negotiations.

At some point farther off it would seem necessary for Israel or the US to prevent Iran from building a bomb [which can only be approximated rather than confirmed by intel (even if, what country would rely on such intelligence after the Iraq debacle)] by destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities. Aside from the ecological danger that entails [was there some fear about terrorists targeting Nuclear Power Plants?] I also have to stress emphasis on the probable reaction of Iran. Since this action would clearly be considered an act of war, Iran will most definitely cut its oil exports, which make up 3,2% of the world production. Since Iran exports oil only to European and Asian countries this does not directly affect the US. However, the lessened supply will make oil a lot more expensive, even for the States. I hereby disregard any further actions taken by Iran or any other Islamic country.

I consider this not to be a entirely pessimistic nor optimistic description of probable events, but a rather logical deduction.
Having said this, I would state that it doesn't really matter how deceitful or uncooperative Iran has been until now. What matters is that there is a good chance to resume the talks and ensure cooperation of Iran instead of giving the chance for a peaceful solution out of hand. Even if this means to make a deal or two with "the devil". I very very much doubt that the Mullahs will back down in face of American military superiority, so the administration should be very careful to choose that path. Nevertheless, at a very last resort, and meaning that by the European, not the American interpretation, military action could be neccessary.

3.)To what extent does any nation have a "right" to nuclear resources? By what right should the U.S. decide the matter for other countries?

I don't want to debate this question in detail, I find it hard to draw an line between the right of a nation to nuclear resources and world security, for it would be entirely arbitrary. The NPT surely has established certain guidelines on what grounds decisions about the "right" to nuclear resources can be based.
But if a country is under the threat of annihilation or in imminent danger to be attacked, shouldn't it have the right to defend itself, even by nuclear weapons? The USA surely would do that. But what about Iran? They use that same logic.
Is democracy an adequate criteria to guarantee a responsible use? Pakistan sure isn't democratic. Why should Iran be excluded if Pakistan has and tests nuclear devices? Therefore I think this logic is so insufficient and opens so many possibilities for exploitation that I cannot answer this without being hypocritical.

The discussion under this topic gives me the sinking feeling that we are witnessing a repeat of the build up to the invasion of Iraq. Misleading statements are put out by administration spokesmen and echoed by major media. This may very well result in a bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities which would endanger American troops in Iraq, plunge the Middle East into decades of crisis and put the world economy in jeopardy with oil prices over $100 per barrel.

The examples of administration and media distortion are many. They start with the characterization of the fundamentalist Ahmadinejad as being in charge of Iran when his position of president is largely an administrative one in the Iranian system. They continue with the distortions of what has gone on in the IAEA inspections and the negotiations with the E3, as I have tried to illustrate in previous posts. Here are 2 summaries posted by UFPPC.org of Financial Times articles and links to the articles to contrast to US coverage.

(Financial Times on Ahmadinejad)

(FT Account of chance for Negotiations)

I'm not entirely sure if that is accurate. Ahmadinejad may or may not be a fundamentalist in a religious sense, but he was elected on a largely anti-American platform.

That certainly poses an interesting question as to whether we've done this to ourselves or not. If we had not invaded Iraq, would Iranians as a whole hate and fear America enough to elect someone like Ahmadinejad over a moderate reformer? I don't know for sure but I'd say probably not.

Or one could first recognize that Iran is not always politically playing to the international demands or pressures. One could see this as a more domestically driven change of course.

The president matters little when it comes to domestic control and power so why would this man be chosen? Is it because the base of support needed to keep Iran on course needs to be adjusted? I think so. I think it is an appeal to the poor, religiously fanatic and uneducated.




I think his religious fervor plays a major role in his path to power. He is said the be the Mahdaviat, or one who prepares for the Mahdi. Do you know what the Mahdi is? It is the Shiite belief that a Islamic second coming of the Messiah will occur. Ahmadinejad has been known for his belief domestically in Iran and for his official state preparations for this visit.
"O mighty Lord," Mr. Ahmadinejad intoned to his surprised audience, "I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace."
source
The above was said at the UN.




I have been experiencing deja vu too , I was thinking how the nation of Iran was continually embracing with a more and more aggressive stance idealogies that were very similar in extremity and exclusion as to those past idealogues that started the great wars of our past.

How is this any different than a Christian person praying for the return of Jesus Christ? Bush played to the extremely devot just as Ahmadinejad did. But not every Iranian holds Ahmadinejad's beliefs just like not every Bush voter holds Bush's religious belief. So their had to be something more than just his Mahdaviat ideals that got him to power. My guess is when your country gets the "Axis of Evil" sticker from the most powerful military in history, you're going to want someone a bit more hardline to try and protect you.

If you read the article I supplied as a source of my quote and even something I feel supports my opinion then you would know I was perfectly comfortable with the idea of this belief in the Mahdi being compared to fervent Christian beliefs in the second coming.

I was illustrating the fact that Ahmadinejad is a religious fanatic and has a very strong power base in Iran based on this fact. I did this because Ahmadinejad as a "fundamentalist in a religious sense" was questioned or doubted.

In the article it states that 20% of Iranians feel this focus on the Mahdi's return is relevant to politics in Iran.

I also think it does differ in the simple fact Iran is a theocracy and America is not.

America is a threat to Iran I don't disagree but how I feel the US threatens Iran is much different then how you seem to view it. I don't think we strategically or physically threaten her I think it is far more political, internal and ideological. I don't think it is American military she seeks protection from, nor do I really feel it is protection she is after.

That is not what I was doing bucket, I was saying "I don't know" and I don't. I really could care less whether he is a fundamentalist, that isn't the point I was making. What I do know is the guy came into power based on an anti-American platform when the previous leader was a moderate reformer. For the general population to make that significant of a change in opinion something must have happened.

I think we can probably safely rule out the country becoming more religious. It is my opinion that one of the major reasons Iranians support him is due to our actions in Iraq. So in other words, we have forced Iran down the path of wanting to acquire nuclear weapons again.

Since we invaded Iraq, the muslim world has increasingly come to hate us and I think this is a direct result of that.

That doesn't necessarily present a solution to the problem but understanding how we came to be in the situation is vital to coming up with a workable solution. One thing this should be telling our world leaders is that rattling their sabres and talking of war probably isn't the best path.

The leader of Iran is still leading Iran, he was when Khatami was president and he is now. His name is Khamene'i and he is about as conservative as one gets in regards to Iranian political idealogue.

Khatami was just a puppet who said one thing in Western venues and quite another at home.

All this talk about "reform" or "moderates" or "democracy' in Iran avoids a lot of the essential requirements and political systems in place in the Iranian government like that Supreme Leader thing and his Guardian Council, along with the fact that in order to run for political office in Iran you must adhere to the political principles that were set forth in 1979, or else you are disqualified. There is no reform or moderation being practiced as the political system is not set up for moderation, reform or change.



And understanding the enemy I thought was useful too? Or is it just that you and I have identified two different enemies in this story? Your's is America of course and mine is....

Who is talking of war? It is sanctions, and if you also wish to use Iraq as the guideline of how Iran will play out, or believe it is just the remanufacturing of the Iraq war, Iraq had UN sanctions for over 12 years.

Interesting responses thus far, I still need to read the thread again and ponder the ideas our good members put forward. I was very surprised tonight to read that the U.S. was successfull in getting China and Russia together with Europe to call on Iran to suspend their nuclar program. This amazing event is detailed in an excellent Washington Post article. It appears that diplomatic and economic pressure will be applied first, I really don't see this tumbling towards war, at least there isn't a pressure to skip the initial diplomatic phases. Things with Iran are bound to become more interesting with the passage of time. In reading the article, it appears that Russia agrees that this is a problem and has offered to enrich the uranium for the Iranians in order to guarantee that the material could only be used for civil purposes.

I haven't always agreed with the way that the Bush administration has handled Iran, and I can appreciate many of the arguments that you're putting forth, but American mistakes and hypocrisies don't absolve Iran of its duty to follow the treaty that it chose to be a part of.

If the IRI's motive is peaceful, it should do what it takes to restore confidence in its nuclear program. Voluntary suspension of uranium conversion was a good step towards this goal.

Also, when a large portion of the world fears that your country would attack Israel if it obtained a nuclear weapon and you're trying to convince them that your nuclear program is for civilian purposes only, you don't turn around and deny the existence of the holocaust while simultaneously talking about wiping Israel off the map. That's provocation, and it certainly doesn't help Iran's case. One has to wonder what Ahmadinejad's motive is when he says such things during a time of negotiation.



I believe that you're correct that our current position in Iraq probably helped Ahmadinejad to get elected, but I also think that his current position has a lot to do with his populist stance. Iran's economy is not in a good place, and his platform was largely based on weeding out corruption and fattening the pocket books of the Iranian people. Money talks especially when you're struggling to make ends meet.

Edited to fix a spelling error.

Honestly bucket, I absolutely cannot stand debating with you sometimes because you constantly make statements like this and I'm really growing tired of it. They don't quite violate the rules but are completely disrespectful and mean spirited at the same time. You've completely bastardized my statements and suggested that America is my enemy. Please. Why don't you stick to what I've written and not what you think I've written. You will not find that anywhere in my statements and in the interest of civil debate I suggest you not mention it again.

I was offering up some additional information to consider along with the topic. If you look at how this is playing out, we are marching down the same road as Iraq. At this point in time this appears to be much more justified, but obviously war is expensive and working things out another way is desirable. That requires out of the box thinking and trying to understand the motivations of Iran. At any rate this is the last time I'll address you in this topic.

en·e·my
2. a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
b. A member or unit of such a force.
3. A group of foes or hostile forces. See Usage Note at collective noun.




Isn't the argument you present here that we are our greatest enemy? Aren't you more focused on America as the hostile power or force in this debate? In fact you even said you "could care less " about the circumstances or source of support Ahmadinejad has in his nation.

You have taken what I have said here personally and publicly. My comments are a response to your comments and I feel it is a fair and accurate analysis of them. In your argument you identify with America as the enemy far more than you do with Iran, in fact the idea Iran is a hostile power or force seems to be completely absent from your views on this issue.

1.)What should the U.S. and NATO do to get Iran to stop nuclear production?

NATO's role, given that Turkey is a NATO member and has a land border with Iran, is to take cautious steps to defend against a possible Iranian attack against one of its member states. With existing Iranian missile technologies, most European NATO members are potentially at risk from attack. The US is not within the radius of attack itself, so it's role should be essentially a supportive one of members that are.

Diplomatically, NATO has little or no role, so diplomatic channels should be used to put pressure on Iran to comply with its NPT obligations as a signatory. Since the US has no direct diplomatic links to Tehran, the UN - both the General Assembly, and the Security Council - should be the preferred route. Other NATO members that are also in the EU have that route open to them too, and many have maintained or re-opened direct diplomatic links.

The interim goal should be peaceful pressure to accept IAEA unlimited inspections of all facilities with no prior notice, followed up (if necessary) by economic sanctions. Iran doesn't have it's own uranium ore, so it should be theoretically possible to prevent them getting any (learning lessons from the corruption of UN sanctions against Iraq).

2.)Can Iran be monitored internationally to ensure that only civilian uses of nuclear technology be used?

Yes, but it will cost money, time and resources. Navies could patrol internaional waters off the coast of Iran, and other armed forces could monitor all inbound land routes, searching all suspect containers. (This would be pretty easy technically - a Geiger counter can only bee fooled with the type of lead shielding that owuld make a vehicles or container heavier than expected. The trick would be having sufficient manpower to do it, and sufficicently incorruptible manpower at that.)

3.)To what extent does any nation have a "right" to nuclear resources? By what right should the U.S. decide the matter for other countries?

I think a nation has the right to nuclear resources to the same extent that they have a right to any other resource - a free market, subject to internationally agreed market regulations. In the case of peaceful nuclear energy, I think anyone should be entitled to pursue such programs subject to international inspection not only for use in weaponry, but also for stringent safety standards in operations and in the disposal of waste. In the nuclear age, we've only had two uses of bombs in anger, but many more instances of leaks, meltdowns, and incompetant waste disposal. We in the existing nuclear powers should accept similar inspections at our own civilian nuclear facilities, if only for our own peace of mind.

On another note, I don't think it's so surprising that Russia and China have fallen into line with proposed UNSC action against Iran. Both China and Russia have domestic problems with Islamic terror and fundamentalism, and both are a lot closer to Iran that the USA, France or Britain. I daresay that if Pakistan were not already a nuclear power, they'd be rather less keen to see them become one today than they were at the tail end of the Cold War when they helped them to develop their nuclear arsenal.

Finally, could someone please tell President Bush that the word is pronounced "new-clee-ar" and not "new-kew-lar". It just makes my heart sink every time I hear him talking about it. How can anyone expound with authority on a subject they can't even say right?

Well I disagree, I feel Russia is motivated by internal demands but mostly economic. She wants that contract to build Iran's nuclear facility and she wants to be guaranteed that contract to also perform uranium enrichment for Iran. It harkens back to the Iraqi sanctions and why they too had so much support in the UNSC. Sanctions are good for guaranteeing contracts.

With China I would imagine she is seeking a "free pass" in Africa for her cooperation on the UNSC in dealing with Iran.

True Iran's trade or as you refer to it closeness is more prominent with China in regards to exports, but regarding imports it is close with European nations more so than any other.

With a nation that is already suffering from economic troubles and already has a populace grumbling about consumer prices rising...what would happen if it's main source of imports was lost?

Also it should be noted that altho. Iran is a oil producing nation and relies heavily on oil exports, Iran also relies heavily on gas imports, and heavily subsidizes the price of gas internally, it is a great strain on Iran economically and an obvious factor that would work in our favor if sanctions were applied.

Iran Guzzles Gas at Its Own Cost

I often bemoan the fact that many European countries have allowed themselves to become financially entwined and expectant on what I consider to be the most destabilizing force in the ME but at the same time we must realize that this closeness can work more in our favor too with UN sanctions. Iran has become very dependent on her foreign trade and has not been idle in isolation like North Korea, and if we time it right in regards to internal economic conditions, which I happen to believe we have been busy arranging, UN sanctions could be the only attack we need.

DOH! It wasn't that kind of closeness I was referring to - Iran with nuclear weapons is physically closer to Moscow and cities of Southern Russia and Western China.

While the money from contracts might be nice, and I don't disagree with any of your more Machiavellian reasons why China and Russia appear to be playing ball in terms of giving Iran the cold shoulder over nuclear development, I don't think anybody (including the Chinese or Russians) wants a sabre-rattling Islamic extremist government with nuclear strike capability on their doorstep.

Despite rhetoric to the contrary (from Iran), a nuclear Iran is almost as dangerous to China and Russia (and the central Asian republics, the Indian subcontinent, all the Gulf and Red Sea states, North East Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean) as it is to Israel. Not that wiping out Israel would be easy, or there would not be fatal consequences for them if they so much as try, but if that were possible, I don't doubt the Iranians would pick on somone else within missile range next.

On your other points, I'm not all that comfortable cosying up to Iran either, though I do think it's a better way to support any nascent democracy there than isolation, sanctions etc. We know they have limited success in the region form Iraq, even without the covert sanctions busting under the petticoats of the Oil For Food programme. I'd be more comfortable with a different UN Secretary General just now.

But at the moment, I think the carrot AND stick approach might yet work, though we all need to be careful not to include nuclear proliferation in the carrot part.

Just thought I'd throw some more oil onto the fire of discussion here. Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post has an excellent editorial on Iran, castigating "old europe" for being cocooned and unresponsive to the dire thread that Iran will most certainly pose to the rest of the world.



Oooooh, that's going to leave a mark.

nebraska29 - Krauthammer? Excellent Article? You've got to be kidding! Krauthammer is a neocon and one of their propagandists that led us into the debacle of the Iraqi occupation to which there seems to be no reasonable way to exit. Now he wants to plunge us into a nightmare with a neighboring nation of 75 million that could create absolute chaos in Iraq if they chose to do so. The only thing in his column that I agree with are the consequences of sanctions or an attack on Iran that he says the Europeans fear. They have a right to fear them and we should as well. In the best tradition of a war propagandist he seeks to make demons out of the Iranians and repeats the ubiquitous error of the US media of characterizing Ahmaddinejad as the Iranian leader when his real role is one of administration. As for the E3 negotiations, the Bush Administration set them up for failure by refusing to participate or to put an end to US sanctions and non aggression guarantees on the table when these were what Iran was seeking. As for NPT violations, I've posted evidence repeatedly illustrating that these are much exaggerated. As for the time table of a few months for Iran to develop a nuclear bomb, this is more extreme exaggeration. Using their current cascade of centrifuges, the shortest amount of time that I have read bandied about is 3 years for Iran to have enough weapons grade uranium for 1 bomb, assumming they have the other technology in place.

Here are some excerpts from some thoughtful articles you should consider rather than blindly following the second round of war propaganda:

Read (Deflating the Hysteria) to get the author's view.

(What Noncompliance).

And a UFPPC summary of a more comprehensive article in the UK Financial Times.
(See the Complete Article with a link to the original).

Edited to add this Link to a thoughtful column by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian.

Sorry homer I was viewing the topic with the geopolitical map in mind, not the geographical one.


Why would it be a benefit for America to put an end to sanctions on Iran? You support the idea of American corporations profiteering off of the misery of others? I don't. I think we often get this wrong but in regards to Iran we have allowed our principles to stand. I support our government and her peaceful opposition and rejection of the Iranian government.


But they are not exaggerated they are just not official. If it was so horribly exaggerated I can't imagine we would be calling a IAEA emergency meeting, or having Russia publicly announce her support for taking this issue to the UNSC. You represent a minority view. The world over has shown their concern and desire to keep Iran in line with the NPT and IAEA demands. The only dispute is how to achieve this.

I personally don't think there's anything the West can do short of military action. We lost our chance over the last ten years. There have been plenty of warning signs and opportunities for us to support regime change from within Iran. The people there want freedom, but that voice is being muffled by a CRAZY LUNITIC whose bent of the destruction of Isreal and the United States at the expence of his own people. I am quite aware of Irans intent:

PLEASE READ THIS!

http://www.zephnet.com/?select=squib&leagu...ket=1&linkoff=1


IMAGE 2

IMAGE 3

IMAGE 4

Iran must be stopped and the only way to do that is with military action!

Does anyone seriously believe that Iran will cooperate on this matter? I read Ted's comments, but Iran's breaking of the seals and going through with this matter no mater what, shows you their attitude towards us and what a threat they truly are. Not only that, but they are now anticipating problems by pulling financial assets from Europe.

Yet another interesting editorial from the WaPo, this time from David Ignatius