Reality and international policy on Iran...
- Thread starter Little Raven
- Start date
jameson
Emperor
There's no source mentioned for the assertion that the US is willing to listen to suggestions that Teheran keep its enrichment program, and I suspect that's because they aren't [willing to listen], realism-based foreign policy being so passé.
So the problem is going to go away because they changed the definitions? What? Either Iran enriching uranium is a problem, or it isn't. If it is, we shouldn't be allowing them to do so, either openly or by changing the definitions to allow them to. And if it isn't bad, and is actually a good idea, we should drop the thing entirely.
I don't see how this is good from either perspective.
Little Raven
On Walkabout
That's because you insist on seeing this in black and white. The reality is more nuanced.
Iran enriching plutonium is a problem, of course, but a manageable one, at least from the US perspective. (Israel may disagree.) At any rate, it's rapidly becoming clear that stopping Iran from enriching uranium will be a bigger problem than allowing the program to go forward.
However, Bush has repeated said in no uncertain terms that we cannot allow uranium enrichment to continue. You can't expect him to back down from that...he's already weak enough.
But what if we were to just tweak the definitions in a way that would allow Iran to continue its nuclear program without technically 'enriching' uranium? Then Bush would get to give a speech and say "Thanks to America's strong leadership in the International Community, Iran has agreed to abide by all UN terms and conditions and cease the enriching of uranium immediately." People cheer and Bush looks good. And Ahmadinejad gets to give a speech and say "Despite immense pressure from the Great Satan, our glorious nation's commitment to nuclear power remains strong, and our program will continue unimpeded." People cheer and he looks good. Everyone looks good, while still getting what they need. What's not to like?
nivi
Call me Ishmael
You cave to thier demands, they say that wanna continue enriching and you don't, so you change definitions, they win.
A rose is a rose...
Little Raven
On Walkabout
True. But to quote that immortal sage, Kenny Rogers...
"You got to know when to hold 'em...
Know when to fold 'em...
Know when to walk away...
And know when to run."
People who insist on doubling their next bet to cover the losses on their last one rarely walk away from the table with their shirt on.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
So Holocaust II is going to take a bit slightly longer? Well, I'm sure we should all be grateful...
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
can i borrow your mystical crystal ball of the future? i'd like to get a good idea when all this "IRAN IS TEH EVYL CUZ THAY HAYTE IZREL" BS is over.
anyways, power+iran=more economic growth=less poverty=less terrorism.
no?
CartesianFart
Deity
What make you think that more economic growth will bring down the poverty and state-sponsor terrorism against the citizen in Iraq and its coalition allies?
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
do you see any developed nation that sponsors terrorism?
i'm not entirely sure of this logic, but it seems to have some ground.
CartesianFart
Deity
What i am saying is that where do these people in Iraq get these IED and weapons from?
It is a question of substantial worth in regarding war?
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
As far as I know, no diversified and developed economy has built itself by being vehemently anti-U.S. and anti-West.
Look what happened when Idi Amin seized power in Uganda; he kicked out the British and severed relations with Israel. The economy collapsed and, for example, the price of a bar of soap jumped to £7, and that was in 70s pounds.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
do you believe nucleur power is necessary for economic growth in the region?
If they don't develop nuclear power and do develop industrially, the worlds supply of oil will be more quickly depleted and pollution will continue at a similar pace even after the current polluters find a new energy source.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Yep, a compromise of the NPT. It's a shame, really, that's one of the world's most successful treaties; the nuclear-powered nations are being dangerously regressive regarding a technology which provides so much benefit.
Of course the world would be daft to give Iran a free pass with nuclear technology, but seeking to limit them the right to produce power, which they have, doesn't accomplish anything, unless the US, EU, etc., are trying to rack up Great Satan points to cash in at a later date.
IC-- I understand what you're saying a deal is a deal however I guess I have a different twist on this. Iran burns the candle on both ends by producing less and less while consuming more and more. They have an obsolete Soviet-style command economy and a constitution that discourages foreign investment (Japan's Inpex just bailed out on a seven year negotiation). Wouldn't this remove the "evil Satan" obstacle as an excuse to their domestic woes?
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
Capitalism is necessary for economic growth; Iran has one of the least free economies on the planet, second only to countries like Zimbabwe, Cuba, and North Korea.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Keshik-
The less oil Iran uses, the cheaper oil becomes (or the slower it becomes more expensive). I think it would be daft to trust that Iran is limiting itself to power, I don't doubt they're after weapons, but they're entitled to their electricity. Less demand for oil worldwide is a good thing for my driving this summer.
I think that's what I very unclearly said, that by opposing Iran's nuclear power ambitions, the US and EU get called Great Satan and the Iranian regime gains popularity at home, something that the US certainly does not want. As long as Ahmedinejad can blame the rest of the world for holding Iran back and create the appearance of that being true among the Iranians, he'll stay popular and powerful in his country while thumbing off the rest of the world.
The less oil Iran uses, the cheaper oil becomes (or the slower it becomes more expensive). I think it would be daft to trust that Iran is limiting itself to power, I don't doubt they're after weapons, but they're entitled to their electricity. Less demand for oil worldwide is a good thing for my driving this summer.
I think that's what I very unclearly said, that by opposing Iran's nuclear power ambitions, the US and EU get called Great Satan and the Iranian regime gains popularity at home, something that the US certainly does not want. As long as Ahmedinejad can blame the rest of the world for holding Iran back and create the appearance of that being true among the Iranians, he'll stay popular and powerful in his country while thumbing off the rest of the world.
Similar threads
