Iran on nuclear enrichment: No deal
-
-
-
-
- afitzgerald
- added this
-
more from News:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/world/middleeast/30nuke.html
Just hours after Iranian President Ahmadinejad agreed to accept an IAEA deal to enrich uranium out of the country, they suddenly backed out. The plan had been to take Iran's nuclear stockpile and send it to Russia to be enriched. It's disappointing for those concerned about Iran's plans for its enriching uranium - though I don't think it's particularly surprising.I was thinking about how long Iran has been playing this game, and it brought to mind this Supernews gem: Iran: Deal or No Deal?
That piece was produced in 2006. Over three years ago. It's kind of disheartening to see what looks like the same game playing out, but with a few different players. No more Bush or Condoleeza Rice, and Putin is now the Prime Minister of Russia, not the President. But it's hard not to watch this and see Iran doing the same things today. Is there another card up the Obama Administration's negotiating sleeve? Let's hope so.
From the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/world/middleeast/30nuke.html
-
- groups:
- News, News_Featured, Obama: The First Term
-
- tags:
- Obama, Bush, Iran, Obama Administration, 15 more
-
-
MilchMann
-
I would expect there will be a much shorter, but new deadline laced with requirements announced next week.
November 23rd is my guess.
- 3 months ago
-
MilchMann
-
-
samthesixth
-
Iran has no intention of giving up its pursuit of nuclear weapons. We are left with two choices---accept a nuclear armed Iran or do something to stop the process. Which shall it be?
- 3 months ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
dragon1984
-
There's is always "Plan C". Although that would not go well for anyone involved.
- 3 months ago
-
dragon1984
-
-
neocongo
-
Israel's possession of dozens of nukes has created a massive imbalance of power in the Middle East, and assuredly drives Iran's desire to develop its own nukes as a deterant. While it is certain that Israel acquired its nukes from US technology and funding, that acquisition was assuredly driven by prior Israeli lobbies and now AIPAC. This really looks like Israel's problem to me. Ideally, Israel should give up its nukes in exchange for utter assurance Iran has ceased all efforts to acquire them as well. Another possibility is that Iran be allowed to develop nukes with the utter assurance they are short-medium range and that absolutely none leave their country.
Particularly, in a nuclear age, imbalances of power are highly destabilizing, and very likely to end in war. Israel either needs to allow a cold war balance to develop, similar to US/Russia and India/Pakistan, or do the unthinkable, and relinquish its own nuclear capacity.
- 3 months ago
-
neocongo
-
-
DougChristian
-
neocongo:
I don't think Israel would ever even consider that. I agree with your second suggestion.
I'm not sure how we can say "All the countries that have nukes can keep them, but no one else can have them." It's unfair, unenforceable and guaranteed to cause war. I don't like the idea of Iran having nukes at all, but if I were Iranian, I wouldn't like the idea of nukes aimed at me by countries that don't like me with no ability to respond if they strike.
Pandora's box has been opened. Nuclear technology exists. We were able to make them in the 40s without computers. Short of preemptive annihilation, there's just no way to prevent a large, technologically advanced nation from acquiring nukes if they are determined to do so.
Our focus should be on ensuring that any nukes Iran does eventually develop will be secure and traceable. They must become an ally in preventing nuclear terrorism. This last bit may be harsh, but I think we should consider extending the concept of M.A.D to apply if one's nukes are used in terrorism. The cost of Iran giving a nuke to Al-Qaeda should be the city of Tehran and every military facility in Iran.
Hard sell in this country though.
- 3 months ago
-
DougChristian
