No surprise here, (as I have been displaying quotes by the Iranian officials announcing their intent to build nukes) but the EU's package of bribes and appeasement offered in exchange for a suspension of Iranian nuclear activities was rejected:
Iran rejected Europe's proposal for ending the standoff over Tehran's nuclear program, saying Saturday it was "unacceptable" because it did not give the country the right to enrich uranium.
How much clearer could the Iranians make it? They are going to build nukes, and nobody is going to stop them...unless we (or Isreal) does. Again, my nagging belief is that the left actually wants Iran to build nuclear weapons, because -
- if they use them, it will be all our fault, you know....our colonialism, globalism, etc..
- if we destroy them, then it's that horrible US, trying to maintain its global dominance, in cahoots with the Jews, etc...
It plays into their handbook; and that's the most important thing, not how many people die in the process. The left wants us to leave Iraq for the same reasons - they know it will fall into a carnage house if we quit early; and they want proof of our defeat, and our evil...an Iraq that succeeds turns their theories on their heads.
Anyway, I'm off-track. The New York Times printed an editorial this morning about the negotiations, before the Iranian rejection, and talk about cluelessness! In an editorial titled "A Glimmer of Hope", we "learn":
It may be only a few more days before the world finds out whether Iran and North Korea are willing to give up nuclear weapons in exchange for broad economic incentives and firm security guarantees
No, geniuses, it took only minutes to find out they were unwilling!
The Bush administration, in a welcome change from the days when John Bolton ran its nonproliferation policies, is now making a serious diplomatic effort to achieve fair and realistic deals with both countries. It is time for Tehran and Pyongyang to show diplomatic seriousness as well, by recognizing that any agreement must apply not just to the making of nuclear bombs, but also to the capacity to produce weapons-grade uranium or plutonium.
Maybe if Bolton was in charge on nonproliferation, the Iranians would see we meant business....no,no, he's too much a bully, better to be nice, and die.
And I believe Tehran has shown it seriousness by rejecting the EU offer; but not the seriousness that the Times was hoping for
The administration's new nuclear diplomacy has produced a remarkable show of international unity. Europe's major powers have joined Washington in insisting on an end to Iran's uranium enrichment programs. Asia's major powers agree with Washington that a deal with North Korea should ban the capacity to make bomb fuel as well as bombs.
How will that unity hold up, now that diplomacy has failed? By the time the EU finishes its endless progressions of resolutions, condemnations, and bargins, the Iranians will be chucking nukes left and right...will any US action be seen as unilateralism, or sanity? Not hard to guess what the Times would say...
Seeing this editorial, today, just as the Times-lauded diplomatic efforts have failed, demonstrates that paper's complete divorce from reality. Consider any dinner guest that smugly quotes from that left-wing reactionary rag to be equally lost as well...
Times editorial link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/06/opinion/06sat1.html?
Article on Iran's rejection of EU package here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050806/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear