Precisely, what IAEA regulation, if any, is Iran violating? This is not clear to me.

I really wish foreign policy experts could sound less like Hollywood scriptwriters and more like sober aides to statesmanship.  Reasoning that depends on pushing the drama and the narrative possibilities is crap.  Characterizing the rhetoric of a foreign leader, who may or may not have any real political power, should not be a prime "factor" in the analysis.  Neither should impressionistic accounts of the "opportunities" presented by whether an agency has won a Nobel Peace Prize, or the emotional states of Russia or the European Union -- even if Russia or the EU could actually have emotional states.

Iran may well go nuclear.  They have the necessary depth of industrial capability and engineering talent.  It would be in their national interest to have nuclear weapons capability.  Nuclear weapons would give Iran a measure of security against the United States and against Russia, which it has not had.  Nuclear weapons would enhance Iranian dominance of the Persian Gulf oil supply. 

Is there any way to change the situation, so that it is NOT in Iran's national interest to acquire nuclear weapons capability?

Is there any way to change the situation, so that in the world view of Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs, it is not in Iran's interest to acquire nuclear weapons and not in the political interest of the regime to resist the non-proliferation efforts of Russia and the Europeans?   (And, not incidentally, can we affect view of Iran's quiescent secularist moderates and liberals, who also clearly see that it is in Iran's interest to acquire nuclear weapons.)

Finally -- and this is going to the toughest thing for American foreign policy analysts to confront -- is there any way for the Bush administration to do any good, whatsoever?  Given the belligerant posturing, which the Republican Right insists upon -- Bush, Cheney, and McCain all included -- is there any way to convince Iran that nuclear weapons capability is not in their interest?  That gang convinced North Korea of what?  And, now they are supposed to work their magic on Iran.  Let's get real, here.

And, here's another important factor, which ought to be on the table:  Given the terrible facts that Bush has been grinding American military capability to dust in Iraq, and that the U.S. will probably be forced out of Iraq because of the abject failure of the reconstruction and the occupation to create a strong, stable government and economy, what are Iran's incentives?

Iran, at this point in 2006, seems to be well-positioned to dominate Iraq, post-U.S., and, dominating Iraq, to dominate the whole Persian Gulf, and dominating the Persian Gulf, to dominate the whole Islamic World and, indeed, the whole World.  A Geopolitical thinker in Iran, today, is having some very heady thoughts about what the world may be like in ten years.  And, nuclear weapons will seem like a necessary element in what could be the greatest Persian Empire since Xerxes. 

I agree with most of Mr. Jentleson's comments but I am getting worried by the constant hyperbole and distortion that is creeping into any analysis of Iran.

First of all Ahmadinejad is not the man in charge. As was indicated during Khatami's unhappy tenure the President is little more than a figurehead. The most powerful person in Iran is Khameini and more generally it is the clerical regime that is in charge. Let's not pretend Ahmadinejad's crazy statements have anything much to do with future Iranian policy.

Secondly as unappealing as Ahmadinejad is it would be nice if his comments about Israel were accurately quoted. What he said was:

 "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement"

Note the word "regime" in there. This isn't really a threat of physical destruction of Israel but more a reiteration of the long-standing Iranian position in support of a one-state solution in place of a Jewish state. This is completely unacceptable to Israel and the US ,of course, but let's not make it sound worse than it is. Note also that it is explicitly stated with reference to Khomeini. Ahmadinejad is not "way out there"  in the Khomeini-era context.

 
This is not to say that an Iranian bomb isn't very worrying for some of the reasons that Mr Jentleson states but I think it is important to get our facts straight and not get carried away by all the hysteria that is blowing around this issue.

The arguments you make here -- especially the one about a chain reaction leading to increased proliferation in the region -- apply even more to Israel than to Iran.  In fact, one could argue that it is Israel's possession of nuclear weapons that is responsible for the presumed Iranian attempt to proliferate.

Pressure -- both diplomatic and with a military option conspicuously not off the table -- should be applied equally to both Israel and Iran.  This even handed approach would be much more likely to convince countries like Iran that they aren't being singled out so as to keep Israel as the only nuclear power in the region. And a Moktada al Sadr-led Iraq is much less likely to embark on a nuclear weapons program if it doesn't feel threatened by Israeli nukes.

What you say about Libya deproliferating does give one hope that it would be possible to convince Israel to deproliferate too.  I'm sure Iran will be every bit as willing to deproliferate as Israel will!  We all need to speak with one voice on this one.  Cue up the sanctions.

Is this the 3d or 4th announcement of a pre-emptive strike.

Paper tigers

These discussions don't seem at all realistic to me. You go to war with the government you have not the government you want. The shrubbery are not listening to us so I don't see the point of these hypothetical discussions. They are trying to use this issue to frighten people as a run-up to the 2006 elections. It’s been their plan since the beginning, see the PNAC. Even American intelligence estimates are that they are 10 years away from actually getting a bomb.

The policies of the neo-cons have done everything possible to make Iran think nuclear weapons are a good idea and left us with no credibility to stop them. We need to oppose their framing of the issue so as to terrify the American people into submitting to their regime. This sort of moot discussion is simply giving them support for their narrative.

Let's clean up our own mess first. 

I think there may be a tendency here to confuse multilateralism with a UN-based approach.  The UN route is appropriate for violations of international law and treaties.  But that's not really the situation we face regarding Iran.  Iranian violations vis-a-vis the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty are so minor that I do not see how an intellectually honest UN-based approach could be expected to produce effective, sustainable and broad-based pressure.  There is not enough of a legal basis on which to build a strong case against Iran.  Nor is the problem posed by Iran a case of Iran's challenging some deep international principles. This is not an issue of a major violation of international law.

Instead, it is simply a case in which certain Iranian policies and actions seem to run contrary to the national interests of several major states around the world, and also many states in the region.  Now, since so many states have similar interests in this situation, and a common interest in dissuading Iran from pursuing uranium enrichment - even though Iran is perfectly entitled to do so from a legal point of view - there is indeed a strong basis for a coordinated multilateral approach.  But that coordination needn't take the form of a Security Council resolution.

Of course, the major powers on the Security Council may seek to turn the Iran situation into a Security Council issue, in order to dress their tactics up with the added accessory of UN solemnity.  But I don't see how they can do so without damaging the integrity of the UN itself.  The international community already has a treaty-based international legal instrument for addressing security issues related to nuclear weapons - the NPT.  But the Iran issue isn't really a legal issue.  It's just a case in which a number of countries have a variety of reasons, related to self-interest, for encouraging Iran to take a different course.  If these countries seek to co-opt the Security Council for purposes related more to common national interest than to violations of international standards, they will further damage the integrity of both the NPT and the Security Council.

But while the opportunities for multilateralism are real, it seems to me that Iran has far more leverage in this situation than Libya had.  I doubt that any sanctions regime is likely to be effective for long, before it collapses from disunity and cheating.  This situation calls for a deal.

Despite the blog format, there's no more genuine give-and-take between pundits and readers in the Cafe, at least in the AA section, than there is on the Post op ed page. The opportunity to see other readers' responses is certainly welcome. However, the failure of those who post to acknowledge, much less respond effectively to readers' comments limits the value and credibility of this site.

I would exempt Dean Slaughter from this criticism, since she does make an effort to respond to comments.  But I agree that most of the other posters on America Abroad tend to remain tightly ensconced in the splendid chambers of their Olympian mutual admiration society, responding in their postings only to themselves, and seem loath to sully themselves through engagement with us filthy mortals below.  This evidence of their elite demeanor does much to explain why it has been so difficult for ordinary Americans to exert a constructive influence on the disastrous policies established by the US foreign policy establishment.  Those policies seem to be determined almost entirely by a handful of key think tanks, academic institutions and lobbying organizations.  And these folks just don't seem to listen to anyone but themselves.

BruceWO7 helps us to reorient our thinking about this issue by placing us in Iran's shoes rather than America's. In a section called America Abroad it is easy to place the US center stage on the topic. Iran, however, may be in the center of its own universe looking east to Pakistan and India with their NPT regime busting nuclear weapons. Iran may be looking east and north to China as a future natural trading partner and ally offsetting any pressure from the EU and Russia. Iran may also have quite a different view of the merits of preserving a UN system that did not raise much of a peep when Iraq used banned chemical weapons on Iran during the brutal eight year Iran-Iraq war. Geopolitically, Iran may find reason enough to hedge their bets on nuclear arms. As BruceWO7 points out there seems to be little difference -- other than rhetoric -- on this issue between the secular moderates or the ruling clergy in Iran. Changing Iran's calculations of what is in Iran's interest is the key here. Lessons from Libya may simply not apply.

Here we go again!

Yet another long article on the "Iran crisis" which repeats little more than Bush spin!  Is this site becoming a front for the neocons? Has there been some "regime change" in the owners of this site that we are not aware of?

An article I saw today specifically states that both the Republicans and the Democrats are "fractured" over the Iran issue, devolving into four camps: the "hawks", the "appeasers", the "negotiators", and the "realists".

Let me lay out the FACTS again:

1)  Nothing Iran is doing is illegal under its obligations to the NPT.

2)  Even if Iran began enriching unanium for the purpose of producing a nuclear weapon, it would STILL be FIVE TO TEN YEARS before they can even produce ONE single gun-model nuclear weapon - let alone one that can be DELIVERED by any missile they currently have in their inventory or are developing.

3)  The Iranians have gone FAR beyond their obligations under the NPT to attempt to satisfy the Europeans and the IAEA that their intentions are peaceful. (I'm not saying they DON'T want a nuclear weapon, even if THEY say that. I'm assuming they DO. But NOTHING they've done publicly indicates that they are currently pursuing such.)

4)  The Iranians already HAVE the ultimate nuclear weapon - the oil bourse denominated in Euros which goes into operation in March of this year.  The Iranian nuclear program is just a SMOKESCREEN for the REAL threat to the United States - and the neocons know this. This article here lays it all out:

http://www.countercurrents.org/us-petrov200106.htm 

5)  Any argument based on the current President Ahmadinejad's hyperbolic comments about Israel and the Holocaust is IRRELEVANT to the discussion. These comments are propaganda on a par with Bush's proclamations about "spreading democracy" everywhere. It's ruminant evacuation and has nothing to do with actual government policies in Iran.

6)  As long as Israel has nuclear weapons and the US - also a possessor of nuclear weapons - is willing to threaten non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons - as we have EXPLICITLY done - then EVERY country in the Middle East will want nuclear weapons. Remove the threat - remove the proliferation. It's that fraggin' simple, folks!  Force Israel to unilaterally diasrm ALL of its nuclear weapons.  Granted, every state is fascist by definition, and all of them will continue to want to be the Big Kahuna in the region, so many of them might still want to obtain such weapons. But it will be a lot easier to negotiate to restrain them in the face of the fact that there are no weapons already in the region than it will be to do so with Israel sitting there with 100-400 weapons, including nuclear cruise missiles on submarines in the Gulf - owned by a state whose Zionist idealogue leaders have repeatedly stated their intention to dominate the entire Middle East from the Nile to the Euphrates.

7)  There is NO incentive for anybody dealing with Iran - Russia, China, Europe - to pressure Iran not to go nuclear - and certainly no incentive to impose sanctions on Iran. Iran is a major trading partner with Russia (albeit an oil competitor). China needs Iran's oil. India and Pakistan are planning to  building pipelines from Iran into India. None of these countries are in any threat from a nuclear-armed Iran (with the possible exception of Pakistan, and that is still unlikely.) 

8)  Therefore, sanctions and embargoes are not going to work. Iran is not Libya. Iran is not Iraq. The situations are sufficiently different that it is very unlikely sanctions - which were ineffective in Iraq except to kill millions of children - are likely to work well. One should also question the use of sanctions against ANY country - considering the effects on Iraq. Do we want to starve another half million children just to pressure another government? Do the people on this site want to say with Madeleine Allbright, "Well, we think it's worth it?"

9)  The article recommends policy change, rather than regime change. Yes, this is a very good idea. And how do you expect the Bush administration to implement it, when you have Christian neocon fanatics like John Bolton at the helm at the UN? When you have Zionist fanatics like Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel urging military strikes on Iran with or without the support of the US military?

I've said this repeatedly over the last few weeks. The following is what progressives need to be doing RIGHT NOW:

Congress must be pressured into legislation explicitly forbidding Bush from initiating or supporting ANY military action against Iran without a formal Declaration of War by Congress, and explicitly forbidding Bush from using nuclear weapons against ANY non-nuclear nation without the express authorization of Congress. 

If you can't get this done in the next two to six months, next year at this time when thousands of US troops are dying in Iraq and Iran, and gas costs $10-20/gallon at the pump, and the US dollar is dumped by half the world, and the US economy sinks back into recession, and suicide bombers are blowing themselves up in New York subways, you'll all be saying how you were against the war in Iran fron the git-go.

I'm not seeing it here now though. What I see are articles SUPPORTING a war in Iran without the nerve to admit it.

"This even handed approach"

It's not even-handed.  In case you hadn't noticed there is a great disparity is population and available natural resources between Israel and the surrounding Muslim world.  Even that out and there might be something to your proposal.

Absent that it won't fly. 

You're seriously suggesting that if Bush launches another one of his "wag the dog" so the Republicans can win in 2006 like they won in 2002 attacks, and someone points out the harm that all these needless deaths cause that is treason? How about treason being lieing your country into a needless conflict and then taking our 4th Amendment rights away forever while waging a "self-declared endless"war on terror" (while outing our covert agent)? And then trying to pull the same con again.

Your opinions are just that.  Nothing more.

There have been, and always will be, disputes about the policies of all governments.  Ours included.  Our system allows for discussions, elections, propaganda, court challanges, etc.  It's not perfect.  It can't please everyone.

Regardless, the nation must act on or react to the challanges facing it.  The government has that responsibility.  When it declares war the nation is required to unite behind it.  Not to do so is defined as treason...and that's what it is. 

IAEA Refuses to be Pressured into Early Report

That's the situation, all right. Actually, it's worse.  Muslims are on record as saying they're prepared to take big hits in order to destroy Israel.  There aren't any good answers.

When it [the government] declares war the nation is required to unite behind it.

Are you suggesting that military service, or some reasonable equivalent, is necessary before one is allowed to criticize?

I hope this is not going to wander into one of those discussions of why current politicians' children aren't in the military. That's the choice of the children, unless there is an exception I've missed to involuntary servitude. By "politician" here, I do not single out either party.

手机铃声 铃声下载 免费铃声 免费铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦铃声 三星铃声 三星手机铃声下载 MP3铃声 手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声 MP3手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 NOKIA铃声下载 小灵通铃声下载 真人铃声 MP3铃声下载 自编铃声 联通铃声下载 移动手机铃声下载 联通手机铃声免费下载 TCL铃声 飞利浦铃声下载 特效铃声 搞笑铃声 MIDI铃声 铃声图片 MMF铃声下载 免费手机图片下载 免费手机点歌 手机短信 手机彩信 手机彩铃 康佳手机铃声下载 TCL手机铃声下载 迪比特手机铃声下载 手机和旋铃声 三星手机铃声 三星手机和弦铃声下载 波导手机铃声下载 熊猫手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声 科健手机铃声下载 海尔手机铃声下载 诺基亚手机铃声下载 手机和弦铃声 手机铃声图片下载 飞利浦手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声曲谱 小灵通手机铃声下载 手机铃声编辑 CDMA手机铃声下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声下载 联通CDMA手机铃声下载 松下手机铃声下载 东信手机铃声下载 联想手机铃声下载 中兴手机铃声下载 大显手机铃声下载 首信手机铃声下载 三星手机自编铃声 三星CDMA手机铃声 康佳手机和弦铃声 MP3手机铃声下载 索尼爱立信手机铃声 手机铃声大全 三星手机铃声图片下载 手机特效铃声 手机铃声制作 三星手机铃声免费下载 TCL手机自编铃声 松下手机自编铃声 飞利浦手机自编铃声 诺基亚手机自编铃声 摩托罗拉自编铃声 三星手机MP3铃声 手机MP3铃声制作软件 免费MP3铃声下载 摩托罗拉MP3铃声 三星MP3铃声下载 联通MP3铃声下载 中国移动铃声下载 中国联通手机铃声下载 免费联通手机铃声 联通铃声 联通用户手机铃声下载 联通手机和弦铃声下载 联通手机铃声图片下载 小灵通铃声免费下载 和弦铃声免费下载
免费下载三星铃声 诺基亚免费铃声下载 联通免费铃声下载 免费铃声图片下载 MMF铃声免费下载 TCL免费铃声下载 免费下载铃声 手机铃声免费下载 松下免费铃声下载 NOKIA免费铃声下载 MIDI铃声免费下载 和弦铃声下载 TCL免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声图片下载 免费手机铃声下载网站 小灵通手机铃声免费下载 诺基亚手机铃声免费下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声免费下载 三星和弦铃声 CECT和弦铃声下载 三星T108和弦铃声 NOKIA和弦铃声下载 康佳和弦铃声下载 迪比特和弦铃声下载 阿尔卡特和弦铃声 CDMA和弦铃声下载 夏新和弦铃声下载 西门子和弦铃声 诺基亚和弦铃声 联通和弦铃声 三星铃声下载 三星和旋铃声 三星T108铃声下载 三星手机铃声乐园 三星CDMA铃声下载 三星免费铃声 三星真人铃声 诺基亚3100铃声下载 NOKIA手机铃声下载 怎样下载小灵通铃声 真人铃声下载 真人真唱手机铃声下载 联通用户铃声下载 联通CDMA铃声下载 TCL手机铃声图片下载 TCL手机和弦铃声下载 飞利浦630铃声下载 三星特效铃声 手机特效铃声下载 搞笑短信 MMF手机铃声 MMF格式铃声 免费短信 短信笑话 幽默短信 经典短信 谜语短信 短信祝福 爆笑短信 生日短信 爱情短信 精彩短信 情人节短信 短信传情 节日短信 彩信图片 彩信动画 彩信相册 免费彩信下载 三星彩信 联通彩信 移动彩信 彩信铃声 免费彩铃下载 移动彩铃 联通彩铃 12530彩铃 小灵通彩铃 免费三星手机铃声 免费和弦铃声 手机图铃下载 免费图铃下载 待机彩图 三星手机待机彩图 丰胸铃声
网络游戏 免费游戏下载 小游戏 在线游戏 游戏外挂 游戏论坛 游戏点卡 联众游戏 泡泡堂游戏 游戏攻略 FLASH游戏 单机游戏下载 美女 美女图片 美女写真 美女论坛 性感美女 美女走光 街头走光 走光照片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 免费电影在线观看 小电影 免费成人电影 免费激情电影 电影论坛 PP点点通电影下载 BT电影下载 免费三级电影 爱情电影 舒淇电影 韩国电影 周星驰电影 流行音乐 免费音乐下载 音乐在线 在线音乐 古典音乐 音乐试听 MP3音乐 MP3下载 MP3播放器 MP3随身听 免费MP3歌曲下载 QQ下载 申请QQ QQ幻想外挂 QQ表情 QQ挂机 珊瑚虫QQ QQ头像 QQ游戏 QQ空间代码 QQ个性签名 网络小说 玄幻小说 成人小说 爱情小说 小说下载 金庸小说 武侠小说 聊天室 语音聊天室 列车时刻表

手机铃声 铃声下载 免费铃声 免费铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦铃声 三星铃声 三星手机铃声下载 MP3铃声 手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声 MP3手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 NOKIA铃声下载 小灵通铃声下载 真人铃声 MP3铃声下载 自编铃声 联通铃声下载 移动手机铃声下载 联通手机铃声免费下载 TCL铃声 飞利浦铃声下载 特效铃声 搞笑铃声 MIDI铃声 铃声图片 MMF铃声下载 免费手机图片下载 免费手机点歌 手机短信 手机彩信 手机彩铃 康佳手机铃声下载 TCL手机铃声下载 迪比特手机铃声下载 手机和旋铃声 三星手机铃声 三星手机和弦铃声下载 波导手机铃声下载 熊猫手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声 科健手机铃声下载 海尔手机铃声下载 诺基亚手机铃声下载 手机和弦铃声 手机铃声图片下载 飞利浦手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声曲谱 小灵通手机铃声下载 手机铃声编辑 CDMA手机铃声下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声下载 联通CDMA手机铃声下载 松下手机铃声下载 东信手机铃声下载 联想手机铃声下载 中兴手机铃声下载 大显手机铃声下载 首信手机铃声下载 三星手机自编铃声 三星CDMA手机铃声 康佳手机和弦铃声 MP3手机铃声下载 索尼爱立信手机铃声 手机铃声大全 三星手机铃声图片下载 手机特效铃声 手机铃声制作 三星手机铃声免费下载 TCL手机自编铃声 松下手机自编铃声 飞利浦手机自编铃声 诺基亚手机自编铃声 摩托罗拉自编铃声 三星手机MP3铃声 手机MP3铃声制作软件 免费MP3铃声下载 摩托罗拉MP3铃声 三星MP3铃声下载 联通MP3铃声下载 中国移动铃声下载 中国联通手机铃声下载 免费联通手机铃声 联通铃声 联通用户手机铃声下载 联通手机和弦铃声下载 联通手机铃声图片下载 小灵通铃声免费下载 和弦铃声免费下载
免费下载三星铃声 诺基亚免费铃声下载 联通免费铃声下载 免费铃声图片下载 MMF铃声免费下载 TCL免费铃声下载 免费下载铃声 手机铃声免费下载 松下免费铃声下载 NOKIA免费铃声下载 MIDI铃声免费下载 和弦铃声下载 TCL免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声图片下载 免费手机铃声下载网站 小灵通手机铃声免费下载 诺基亚手机铃声免费下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声免费下载 三星和弦铃声 CECT和弦铃声下载 三星T108和弦铃声 NOKIA和弦铃声下载 康佳和弦铃声下载 迪比特和弦铃声下载 阿尔卡特和弦铃声 CDMA和弦铃声下载 夏新和弦铃声下载 西门子和弦铃声 诺基亚和弦铃声 联通和弦铃声 三星铃声下载 三星和旋铃声 三星T108铃声下载 三星手机铃声乐园 三星CDMA铃声下载 三星免费铃声 三星真人铃声 诺基亚3100铃声下载 NOKIA手机铃声下载 怎样下载小灵通铃声 真人铃声下载 真人真唱手机铃声下载 联通用户铃声下载 联通CDMA铃声下载 TCL手机铃声图片下载 TCL手机和弦铃声下载 飞利浦630铃声下载 三星特效铃声 手机特效铃声下载 搞笑短信 MMF手机铃声 MMF格式铃声 免费短信 短信笑话 幽默短信 经典短信 谜语短信 短信祝福 爆笑短信 生日短信 爱情短信 精彩短信 情人节短信 短信传情 节日短信 彩信图片 彩信动画 彩信相册 免费彩信下载 三星彩信 联通彩信 移动彩信 彩信铃声 免费彩铃下载 移动彩铃 联通彩铃 12530彩铃 小灵通彩铃 免费三星手机铃声 免费和弦铃声 手机图铃下载 免费图铃下载 待机彩图 三星手机待机彩图 丰胸铃声
网络游戏 免费游戏下载 小游戏 在线游戏 游戏外挂 游戏论坛 游戏点卡 联众游戏 泡泡堂游戏 游戏攻略 FLASH游戏 单机游戏下载 美女 美女图片 美女写真 美女论坛 性感美女 美女走光 街头走光 走光照片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 免费电影在线观看 小电影 免费成人电影 免费激情电影 电影论坛 PP点点通电影下载 BT电影下载 免费三级电影 爱情电影 舒淇电影 韩国电影 周星驰电影 流行音乐 免费音乐下载 音乐在线 在线音乐 古典音乐 音乐试听 MP3音乐 MP3下载 MP3播放器 MP3随身听 免费MP3歌曲下载 QQ下载 申请QQ QQ幻想外挂 QQ表情 QQ挂机 珊瑚虫QQ QQ头像 QQ游戏 QQ空间代码 QQ个性签名 网络小说 玄幻小说 成人小说 爱情小说 小说下载 金庸小说 武侠小说 聊天室 语音聊天室 列车时刻表