As Iran prepares to lead the world down the perilous path toward a nuclear Islamofascist regime, French President Jacques Chirac is looking for Tehran’s “word”. According to USA Today, Britain, France and Germany are ready to make a “generous” offer to Iran in exchange for assurances that the Iranians will abandon their nuclear ambitions. Iran has long claimed that its aim was to develop a nuclear fuel program, but has always used threatening talk in conjunction with it.
As Slowplay.com reported months ago:
Iran has promised military retaliation as well as an acceleration of its nuclear “fuel” program if the United States attacks them. My question is this: Why would Iran threaten to finish its nuclear program if it was only for energy purposes? Isn’t the real threat here “if you attack us, we guarantee we’ll build the bomb“? Perhaps Iran thinks these statements will help it in some way, but I don’t see this as a good play at all. But, maybe Iran thinks we’re all talk… [February 7.]
…
Hassan Rowhani… Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, [commented] on state television Tuesday [that] … Iran can move its nuclear workshops under mountains and carry out its program where no bomb and missile could be effective.
Nobody would threaten to finish an energy program under a mountain. This appears to be an allusion to a nuclear deterrent – a statement from Iran that an attack on them will lead to mutually assured destruction. [February 8.]
The nuclear fuel smokescreen is continuing, but Iran is continuing to hardly even veil its obvious desire for a nuclear weapons program. Otherwise, why would they have made this threat?
“Europe has only a few hours, up to when the council meets, (to file its) proposal. If it does not arrive by that time, the council will discuss breaking the ice” on Iran’s stalled nuclear program, Agha Mohammadi told state radio Sunday.
No statement on the council’s decision was published on Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency on Sunday night.
The Iranian comments triggered alarms in Paris, London and Vienna, Austria, with a British official labeling them a “dangerous step.”
Indeed it is a dangerous step. Can Europe — especially Great Britain, who supported the U.S. in Iraq and has recently been struck by a wave of terrorism — really feel it is time to appease by entering a gentlemen’s agreement with a group of rogues that are wholly incapable of conducting themselves like gentlemen?
Iran suspended uranium enrichment in November under international pressure led by the United States, which suspects Tehran’s nuclear program is aimed at trying to make weapons and once labeled Iran part of an “axis of evil.” Iran maintains its program is peaceful and has long said its decision to suspend all uranium enrichment-related activities was voluntary and temporary.
France, Britain and Germany, acting on behalf of the 25-nation European Union, had been expected to present their incentive package to Iran by the beginning of August, but they requested a delay until Aug. 7.
The European diplomat accredited to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency said the three nations plan to hand over their deal next week and would not be rushed by Iranian pressure.
The package could include nuclear fuel, nuclear technology and security guarantees, although no one can give a “100 percent guarantee” against invasion, said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the confidential negotiations with the media.
If Iran does resume production of uranium gas at Isfahan as threatened, the Europeans would call for an emergency IAEA board meeting, the diplomat said. That meeting would likely set a deadline for Iran to “see the error of their ways” and stop all enrichment-related activities.
If the deadline is not met, then the Europeans — with American support — would push to have Iran referred to the U.N. Security Council for breaking their promise to desist from work linked to uranium enrichment as long as the talks with the Europeans continue. The council could impose sanctions on Iran.
Nathan Novak at 7:42 pm
Why do people believe that the US is the only country who can be trusted with the A-bomb when it is the only country that has ever used it? Plus, the army is now asking for additional bunker busters. They say they won’t use them, but if they won’t use them, why do they need them? Besides, the US has to import so much oil that it couldn’t fight a major war. We fought WWII with four million barrels of oil a day all from the US and now we use 20 million a day 60% of which has to be imported.
Comment by Robert Mason — July 31, 2005 @ 8:21 pm
I think no nation is a safe nation unless it’s a democracy, especially if it has nukes. We have seen already with nkorea, china, and others recently that those with nukes use it to bully or threaten to push there will. Ultimately it comes from having a free country that makes people resolve issues without force because we all know, who live in free countries, that we have too much to live for. bottom line: if there not a free society, there not responsible enough to have nukes in there posession because there leaders are usually idiots, respectfully.
Comment by Pete B — July 31, 2005 @ 8:43 pm
The reason America is the only contry to be trusted with the A-bomb is because they are the only country that chose not to use them when they had a monopoly on them.
After Japan surrendered America could make them at a rate of 1 per week. We could have taken over the entire world at that point in time for almost no loss of American life. That we chose not to is the main reason the rest of the world has allowed us to be the police man for so long.
Like it or not the American public IS uniquesly suited to this task. In their prime would the British, French, German, Chinese, Italian, Russian, Japenese, Spanish, etc etc etc etc have made the same decision?
History screams no. The USA alone of all nations in recorded history chose to not expand when they possesed military force far beyond their enemies (USSR, Comunist China, etc).
It is because of this history of restraint beyone historical precident that America is the worlds policeman.
Comment by The truth — July 31, 2005 @ 10:01 pm
You say, “if there not a free society, there not responsible enough to have nukes in there posession because there leaders are usually idiots, respectfully”
Apart from the grammar that makes it a bit hard to understand, you have a very twisted sense of logic. Not free -> leaders are usually idiots? Are you implying that free countries leaders are not idiots? What about the US? Is that a free country or not? Is the leader an idiot or not?
Comment by tom — July 31, 2005 @ 10:08 pm
I don’t like the arguments in this article…the whole part about a “gentleman’s agreement” when the US has been friends w/ Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where lots of the suicide bombers have been from or trained, when the US has supported Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussain, and toppled democratic regimes like Mosadeq. It seems more more like a gentleman’s agreement is not possible with the US rather than vice versa. Also the US supported a nuclear program under the shah, and Pakistan, India and Israel aren’t signed on the the Nonproliferation treaty, while Iran is…etc. I think this article could be alot more balanced…right now it seems more like propaganda.
Comment by abe — July 31, 2005 @ 10:16 pm
You are all missing the point. Americans value life. Iranians are devoted to a religion that guarantees that if you kill the “infadel”, i.e., American (or other) non-believer, you will take the express line to heaven where you will be met by 50 or so virgins. Iranians are idiots that seek to destroy Israel, the United States, and Christianity. If Iran continues down this path, the US will destroy their scientific infrastructure by force. If they “take it underground”, the US will invade, and basically own it like they do Iraq (face it guys - we’re not leaving the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world alone to it’s own fate). Although we live in a world where the collective human race values life, after a few more 911’s, we wil revert back to the time of the crusades, and repeat that “clensing” all in the name of global security. My advice to muslims the world over is to quietly blow yourselves up in the privacy of your own homes. Your death is inevitable if you continue down this path.
Comment by Jim — July 31, 2005 @ 11:03 pm
Americans value life, that’s why we didn’t win Vietnam. We don’t want to die for some other country that we can’t locate on a map. Eventually we’ll have to make peace and try to get along by being fair and just. And I think that if we can show that we really value life, that will be a step in the right direction, b/c sometimes it seems to be the contrary.
Comment by frank — July 31, 2005 @ 11:23 pm
I say “Call their bluff”. “They” claim we “soil” their “Holy Land”, never mind 3 major religions call the middle east “home”. The europeans in the meantime, speak about the U.S. as if we were the ones that built the Berlin wall, shut down eastern europe for 50 years, started two world wars, used chemical weapons on the battle field, killed millions before, during & after them. Not to mention that they don’t like how we make our food or technology. So let’s just keep it all to ourselves. Bring all the troops & hardware home. Lets turn the grains of America into fuel for our “evil SUVs” [biodiesel & ethanol] & if we can’t “sell” stuff to their public then they can’t sell to ours. Next time they {particularly Iran, that is probably sponsoring the terrorists anyway) break international law (anybody remember the hostages in Iran 20 years ago?), we should just crush them and then DON’T fix them. Just leave them bombed, broken, starving for both food AND cash. I’m sorry for sounding cruel, but it’s no more cruel than these “declared enemies” have already promised, if they could. They aren’t the only ones that can “Fly the Black Flag” thats what their quest for the atom really is about anyway. Do they really expect me to believe that they need nuclear power to pump oil out of the ground?
Comment by Isolationist Anthony — July 31, 2005 @ 11:51 pm
The Truth claims “The USA alone of all nations in recorded history chose to not expand when they possesed military force far beyond their enemies”
Perhaps someone could explain what happened to Mexico & the Indians? Maybe I’m suspicious, but it was convenient that the invasion of Panama occurred just before the canal became Panamanian property, and that the nice new Panamanian govt signed the canal back to the USA for another 100 years.
I may be mistaken, but while the USA has been involved in more wars since WW2 than any other, they have always been the aggressor - with the possible exception of Afganistan.
It seems to me that democracy, particularly the form favored in the USA (2 choices, no difference, richest guy wins) is a proven failure in the peace stakes.
Comment by Curious Aussie — August 1, 2005 @ 5:21 am
Curious Aussie - America built and paid for the Panama Canal - have you forgotten that? Before you ask “what of the American Indian”, ask of yourself “what of the Australian Aborigine”. Your anscestors are no more innocent than mine.
Mexico?? Americans now compete with that country for jobs and goods (ever heard of NAFTA?).
Still Curious?
Comment by Jim — August 1, 2005 @ 7:09 pm
I dont understand I thought Iran was one of the worldest leading oil exporter, why cant they just use oil for fuel. i think about 20% of america’s electricity is generated that way
Comment by Isiah — August 3, 2005 @ 1:53 pm
America is full of stupid ‘citizens’ who don’t believe in national defense, as well as full of traitors and foreign agents whose job is to mislead public opinion. America has its problems, but is far better at everything and in every category than any other nation on earth. Let the jackass governments and nations of the world be warned, if you screw with America you’re going to die.
Comment by midwesterner — November 14, 2006 @ 4:54 pm
So we now have troops in Uzbekistan, Kirghistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, with military supporters in Qatar, Israel, Greece…we have infiltrated the region and are clearly posed to strike. We killed their elected leader in the 50’s to set up the Shah. I imagine some people were upset about that. When the revolutionaries eventually overthrew the Shah, we empowered Saddam Hussein and threw him support in his war with the Iranians. So now we threaten them from all angles with a physical military presence, blaming them for terrorism they have not yet committed, and pleading ignorant and unrepentant for the atrocious efforts we have gone through to prevent them from any form of democratic rule.
Iran knows it can’t win a straight-up war with us. It knows it couldn’t survive politically or militarily if it pre-emptively uses nuclear weapons or networks them to terrorists. Neighbors with nukes: Israel, US military, Pakistan, India - Israel is surely not a sitting duck.
The one conceivable use for nuclear weapons that I think Iran would consider is rendering their oil reserves unusable in the case that we attempt to imperialize their nation. This would be a last ditch effort to prevent America from furthering its empire, by crushing the economic ability of the economy, which relies upon its usage of oil. Furthermore, if it had the ability to deliver small-scale missiles to Iraq, it could possibly also extinguish their oil supplies. This is the best effort Iran could provide at Mutually Assured Destruction.
Comment by Bob — June 13, 2007 @ 1:53 am