The current U.S.-EU strategy is to offer talks only if Iran suspends nuclear enrichment. That's a principled position. The problem is it hasn't worked.

The problem is neither the US nor the EU have given Iran a reason to stop pursing nuclear technologies.

The famous Ghandi story is: "my son admires you, can you ask him to stop eating sugar. Ghandi thought for a moment and said, I'll be back in a week. In a week, Ghandi came back and asked her son to stop eating sugar. The mother asked, why did you have to wait a week? and Ghandi said, I had to stop eating sugar first!

The leaves the question "Is the US and/or EU being hypocritical?" unanswered.

Iran is a sovereign nation and doesn't it have the right to pursue it's economic interests?

Why can't the US and/or the EU live up to their standard?

If the US and Iran start talking, then Israel will be left in the cold. Israel doesn't want that, so their Israel-First Neocons will scream "Appeasement!" everytime the US actually dares pursue its own interests in the Mideast . . .

Lee-

Clarify for me.
Doing a side deal with the Europeans will avoid the Chinese and Russians who are the least likely to move ahead with stronger sanctions? What are the consequences for our relations with those two? For example, does it complicate efforts to get the Chinese to do the right thing in Darfur?

Would joining the US in imposing sanctions on Iran outside the UN sit well with the populations of most of our Europeon allies? I'm guessing that except for the UK(?), they need the UN cover and that the idea of challenging Russia and China on that level is quite risky. Wouldn't all states signing on have to do so as individual nations? Or would the EU have to ratify such an agreement? Cumbersome.

Hell, we need the UN cover. It's the most efficient mechanism in place to get a sanctions agreement and then Iran won't comply, etc. If there's to be another war or two, time is ticking.

This is getting frankly ridiculous.

Iran will get nukes and there's nothing the US/EU can do about it.

Talk of sanctions is laughable.

Planet "America Abroad" seems inhabited by aliens who only too rarely seem to be visiting planet earth.

artappraiser you've taken it upon yourself recently to police civility, but politics is a rough business. Now you try to do the same for error, basing your response on nothing more than job titles and appeals to authority.

Feinstein is speaking the language he knows, and arguing from positions more than facts. He's an expert on American foreign policy not on Iran, but he speaks as if one were de facto the other. That's absurd and at this point should be seen as such. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and nationalism is a strategy for winning office not a foreign policy.

Don't we also need the Chinese to help with North Korea and perhas down the road Pakistan?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

If this is addressed to me, I'm afraid I don't understand your point.

you've taken it upon yourself recently to police civility

Wish others would, too. Otherwise this site will end up just like many others people came here to escape.

politics is a rough business.

This point has been addressed many times before:

Josh Marshall:"The level of vitriol and personal attacks in the comments sections is too high...There are plenty of sites for yelling. I don't want this to be one of them...."

selfinterest: ".....Public commentary of any sort is risky. You expose yourself to criticism...and some of it can be very painful. On a political site the benefits - truths about human nature, contemporary events, leaders and followers - are presumed to be worth the risks and pain.

If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen"

My response:
"Just my own personal druthers, one vote here: I'm in favor of air conditioning; I'm not that interested in a "hot kitchen" type site...."

Josh Marshall's response:
"I agree with Artappraiser. This isn't a hot kitchen type of site we're you've gotta be man enough or something to take the heat. This isn't a hot kitchen type of site we're you've gotta be man enough or something to take the heat."

Josh claims more recently that everyone here knows this since he has pressed it. Obviously not.

He's an expert on American foreign policy not on Iran, but he speaks as if one were de facto the other.

It was hass who was speaking as if he were the defacto expert on Iran. Since he did so, and implied Mr. Feinstein didn't know shit about Iran, I'd like to know what his qualifications are. Otherwise, wouldn't it be a better tactic to say something on the order of "this citizen would like to know how much you consider the history and culture of Iran in your opinion." It's the attack mode, always trying to accelerate things into a wrestling match. Mr. Feinstein did not attack anyone in his post, why do we need to introduce adversial framing?

You're right I am not interested in adversial commentary. Josh goes out of his way to bring diplomatic think tank types to America Abroad and those who use the "attack them for being what they are" mode basically says to me that you don't really want them posting here. Then why use the site? Either you want to engage in their framing or you don't. Attack and disagree are two different things. I'm very interested in reading people challenge the thoughts of these contributors, and strongly, but I am not interested in rants by someone anonymous who thinks he knows how to run the world imply that they are stupid and they could do their job so much better. It's all in tone and approach.

"Ever think the ad hominem approach towards contributors and other commenters alike discourages more people from participating than it encourages?"
If someone refutes a ridiculous argument that person has no right to snark? It would seem hard to avoid. How much contempt do JMM and the rest of the official writers here pour on right wing arguments in general and even on those who make them? Or is a biting sarcasm less cruel? If what Hass wrote were written in response to something by some idiot at The Corner would you have had the same response? It reads like something by one of the Harvard boys at Tapped.

"And you think yellin' at Lee is going to make him take you seriously?"
I have no interest in Mr Feinstein taking me seriously, but since I don't take him very seriously its a fair trade. As it is I'm writing for the other readers of this forum.

"Being a diplomat..."
I can name-drop from the Johnson administration, in fact from the beginnings of our involvement in Vietnam, on both sides to the present.
Do I have your permission now?

Let me step back, what is the genesis of the idea that to talk is appeasement? Why is that such a hard and fast rule?

irishkg,

Given that that the US has invaded and occupied two neighboring countries, funded terrorist groups that have worked to subvert Iran's government, threatened sanctions against Iran and placed Iran on an "axis of evil", I can see why Iranians might think negotiating with the US constitutes appeasement. But I don't think that should stand in their way.

Ohhhh ... maybe Lee and others are talking about the US appeasing Iran? Right! There should be absolutely no appeasment! The US should not negotiate with Iran until Iran has withdrawn its armies from Pola..., um, Czecho..., um, Azerbai..., um, um ... Hey, where are those Iranian armies anyway?

Iran has indeed made several offers that would have resolved any GENUINE concerns about WMD proliferation, and all of them have been ignored by the US and the EU3 however to my knowledged none of them included a demand for a seat on the UNSC.

However, Iran's offers did include several provisions that go well beyond anything Iran is obligated to do under the NPT, and did include the offer of opening Iran's enrichment program to international investors, thus ensuring that no material could be "secretly" used to make bombs. This matched a suggestion by the IAEA itself too.

The US and EU insist, however, that no Iranian should ever even have the knowledge of nuclear enrichment technology, even for 100 percent civilian purposes, because it "could be" used to make bombs possibly one day. The same argument could of course be made about any advanced technology so in short the US and EU want to have a veto over Iran's technological progress.

Read more about Iran's offer here:

We in Iran don't need this quarrel Javad Zarif The New York Times THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006

NEW YORK The controversy over Iran's peaceful nuclear program has obscured one point in particular: There need not be a crisis. A solution to the situation is possible and eminently within reach.

Lost amid the rhetoric is this: Iran has a strong interest in enhancing the integrity and authority of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It has been in the forefront of efforts to ensure the treaty's universality. Iran's reliance on the nonproliferation regime is based on legal commitments, sober strategic calculations and spiritual and ideological doctrine.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, has issued a decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

Let me be very clear. Iran defines its national security in the framework of regional and international cooperation and considers regional stability indispensable for its development. We are party to all international agreements on the control of weapons of mass destruction. We want regional stability. We have never initiated the use of force or resorted to the threat of force against a fellow member of the United Nations.

Although chemical weapons have been used on us, we have never used them in retaliation. We have not invaded another country in 250 years.

Since October 2003, Iran has accepted a robust inspection regimen by the United Nations. We have allowed more than 1,700 person-days of inspections and adopted measures to address past reporting failures. Most of the outstanding issues in connection with uranium conversion activities, laser enrichment, fuel fabrication and the heavy-water research reactor program have been resolved.

Iran has gone beyond its international obligations and allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to repeatedly visit military sites - and to allow inspectors to take environmental samples. The agency has concluded time and again that there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Last September, it concluded again that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."

Another point that has been obscured: Iran is ready for negotiations. Since October 2003, Iran has done its utmost to sustain and even resuscitate negotiations with Britain, France and Germany, the three European countries responsible for negotiating with us.

Since August 2004, Iran has made eight far-reaching proposals. What's more, Iran throughout this period adopted extensive and costly confidence- building measures, including a voluntary suspension of its rightful enrichment activities for two years, to ensure the success of negotiations.

Over the course of negotiations, Iran volunteered to do the following within a balanced package:

Present the new atomic agency protocol on intrusive inspections to the Parliament for ratification, and to continue to put it in place pending ratification;

Permit the continuous on-site presence of IAEA inspectors at conversion and enrichment facilities;

Introduce legislation to permanently ban the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons;

Cooperate on export controls to prevent unauthorized access to nuclear material;

Refrain from reprocessing or producing plutonium;

Limit the enrichment of nuclear materials so that they are suitable for energy production but not for weaponry;

Immediately convert all enriched uranium to fuel rods, thereby precluding the possibility of further enrichment;

Limit the enrichment program to meet the contingency fuel requirements of Iran's power reactors and future light-water reactors;

Begin putting in place the least contentious aspects of the enrichment program, like research and development, in order to assure the world of our intentions;

Accept foreign partners, both public and private, in our uranium enrichment program.

Iran has recently suggested the establishment of regional consortiums on fuel-cycle development that would be jointly owned and operated by countries possessing the technology and placed under atomic agency safeguards.

Other governments, most notably the Russian Federation, have offered thoughtful possibilities for a deal. Iran has declared its eagerness to find a negotiated solution - one that would protect its rights while ensuring that its nuclear program would remain exclusively peaceful.

Pressure and threats do not resolve problems. Finding solutions requires political will and a readiness to engage in serious negotiations. Iran is ready. We hope the rest of the world will join us.

Javad Zarif is the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations.

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php

Maybe the way for Holocaust scholarship to gain some traction with the denialists in the region would be to actually show up for that conference, debate it, and bury the deniers in the mountain of facts.

Of all the debates to run away from, I don't know why it should be taboo to embarrass a bunch of bullshit artists in front of their own audience.