Saturday, August 06, 2005

Iran, The E.U., and the New York Times...

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 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,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:
Article on Iran's rejection of EU package here:


Kira Zalan said...

Iran has declared that it will resume nuclear conversion at Esfahan within one or two days. Europe has requested an emergency meeting of the IAEA to pressure Iran not to resume nuclear fuel cycle work. Israel is pressuring Ukraine to demand from Iran the 12 nuclear-capable X-55 cruise missiles that were smuggled there four years ago.

All of this is happening as the talks with North Korea are drawing to a crucial, and so far unpredictable, end.

So is World War III imminent? Hardly.

Over reaction is exactly what these unlikely allies are fishing for. The coincidence of declared threats by both countries is a bit too convenient. By cranking the nuclear threat pressure simultaneously, both North Korea and Iran are hoping to walk away with the most handouts.

Anonymous said...

You are probably half-right, Kira - while threats and bluster is the only currency that North Korea has, Iran does not need economic concessions; and in fact knows its interests will be protected by Russia and China in any Security Council deliberations regarding sanctions. Their pursuit of nuclear weapons is aimed at making them both an economic and military superpower in the Middle East. And being they are an Islamist theocracy with the stated intention to
-Destroy Isreal
-Destroy "The West"
-Impose Islam on the world
I believe we should take them seriously. WWIII tomorrow? No.
But in three years; on a nuclear level? Maybe.
Let's stop it now.