Is this mike on?

[Hosakawa Tito]

--->DOH!<---

I hate it when that happens.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Chirac is getting a lot of heat for saying what everyone actually knows.

Iran having the bomb is not the same as Iran using the bomb. If it used the bomb, it would be razed to the ground - they know it, everyone knows it, and Iran is not mad.

Iran wants the bomb because the US keeps threatening it, and not just for wanting the bomb. They see that the loonies of North Korea (far more unstable) are left alone because they have a bomb. There was a point before the Iraq invasion and the axis of evil stuff where they would have talked about stopping bomb research in return for guarantees of security. They still might.

But they keep on being threatened. So they want the bomb.

So would everyone else in their shoes.

[macsen rufus]

". . . I honestly believed that the questions, aside from [those on] the environment, were off the record."

That's the proof he's lost his marbles. NO question is ever off the record, in this duplicitous world. The easiest way to get in the headlines is to tell a journalist something "in confidence".

There was a point before the Iraq invasion and the axis of evil stuff where they would have talked about stopping bomb research in return for guarantees of security.

Too true. Talk about missed opportunity of the decade, but oh no, USA foreign policy has to be laced with testosterone, yet again. Why engage in dialog (sic) when you can just make threats instead?

[Hosakawa Tito]

Iran appears to be throwing out plenty of unprovoked threats themselves, and have been covertly developing nuclear arms since long before the invasion of Iraq, in violation of a treaty they signed, and any plausible US invasion threat. Their expressed perception of danger from US invasion (which is at this time is not possible let alone desired) is an excuse to develop nuclear arms to threaten/dominate their neighbors, Isreal first, of course, then any Sunni Arab states. A nuclear arms race among religious fanatics wouldn't be exactly ideal, but the material and knowledge is definitely available to those willing to pay the price, and eventually a determined effort to get these weapons will take place.

Knowing that Iran has already signed and agreed not to develop nuclear arms, then reneged on that, why does one believe any other missed foreign policy opportunities would have had a different result? Iran has more to fear from within, than from without.

So what do you propose, allow the Iranians their nuclear pacifier? Give them one with the expilicit threat that if they use it to attack someone we "raze Tehran".

Chirac is getting a lot of heat for saying what everyone actually knows

Not that I'm defending the fool, but I wonder how many replies this thread would have had if the subject of this interview had been named Bush?

[macsen rufus]

I'm all for equal opportunities on nuclear weapons -- I want NOBODY to have them, your govt, my govt, the Iranian and Israeli govts alike. Not to mention the fruitbats living under the stairs who have more chance of obtaining nuclear materials thanks to the above mentioned govts and their respective failures.

perception of danger from US invasion

Look at a map and count the number of Iran's neighbours that HAVE been invaded by the US, add in all the testosterone-fuelled rhetoric from Washington and it's easy to form that perception, very easy. If your neighbours have been burgled, the guy across the road has been burgled, and the bully at the end of the street says "Oi! You're next!", then you get a ing burglar alarm installed, don't you? (Or assuming you're in the US you buy a bigger gun and sit home at nights...)

Iran has more to fear from within, than from without.

Here I agree with you, to a degree. Iran is not a monolithic state, it has many factions and powerful social forces that endure varying degrees of repression. These should be engaged, not all lumped in together and threatened with the same big stick that's being waved at Mr Dinnerjacket. Given such a complex situation, to turn down any offer of dialogue was shortsighted in the extreme.

[KukriKhan]

Does anyone see any chance possible for a US-Iran dialog in the next 6 months? Or has all the noise from those sabres being rattled drowned out any hope of meaningful communication?

Is the "window of opportunity" slammed shut and nailed?

[Xiahou]

Iran having the bomb is not the same as Iran using the bomb. If it used the bomb, it would be razed to the ground - they know it, everyone knows it, and Iran is not mad.

So you're saying if a nuclear bomb went off in a US city and Iran was implicated, but vehemently denied any involvement you'd be in favor of turning Iran into a sheet of glass? I don't think they believe any such thing.

We just sent a second carrier battle group to the Gulf, though our new SecDef denies that it's aimed at Iran.

I think our Persian pals are far from ignorant of US attack capabilities. 'Boots on the ground'? Agreed: ain't happening tomorrow. But "shock-and-awe" airstrikes from the USN & USAF? Entirely possible, from their point of view.

All of which makes an afternoon talk over tea, a more distant option.

The perceived threat of meaningful consequences can encourage negotiations. So far, the line has been "Iran must abandon it's nuclear aspirations or else we'll be forced to talk more about it." I'm sure Iran is perfectly happy with that arrangement- if any meaningful sanctions look anywhere close to being approved, Iran only need mention it wants more talks and Russia & China will back them up.

I think it's a forgone conclusion that Iran will get nuclear weapons- the international community is completely paralyzed and unable to agree on anything-, the question is what will they do with them? And the possible answers are truly frightening.

[Watchman]

My bet for that last one involves sitting around, picking navels, and watching the virtual dick grow...

That's what everyone has done with them, and as I've often pointed out before, there's no particular indication the Iranians wouldn't be happy enough with that tried-and-true arrangement.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So you're saying if a nuclear bomb went off in a US city and Iran was implicated, but vehemently denied any involvement you'd be in favor of turning Iran into a sheet of glass? I don't think they believe any such thing.

I would be in favour of a proportionate response and would expect it. Apart from the woolliness of the scenario proposed (I assume you're positing a suitcase bomb deployed by unidentified terrorists claimed by some group associated with Iranian interests) one would have to know how Iran was implicated. Let's face it, claims by your government would currently have to be treated with some degree of scepticism in such a scenario, don't you think?

Back in the real world, it is highly unlikely the Iranians would be able to develop ballistic technology to deliver a bomb effectively over long distances, let alone get such through the defence mechanisms of a country like the US. Which leads me on to:

The perceived threat of meaningful consequences can encourage negotiations. So far, the line has been "Iran must abandon it's nuclear aspirations or else we'll be forced to talk more about it." I'm sure Iran is perfectly happy with that arrangement- if any meaningful sanctions look anywhere close to being approved, Iran only need mention it wants more talks and Russia & China will back them up.

I think it's a forgone conclusion that Iran will get nuclear weapons- the international community is completely paralyzed and unable to agree on anything-, the question is what will they do with them? And the possible answers are truly frightening.

There is too much fear pervading here. I remember the same sort of panics in regard to the Soviet Union and their "faceless hordes". Iranians enjoy a sort of democracy - by no means what we would aspire to, but it does influence their politicians. It wasn't that long ago that the President was Hashemi Rafsanjani, a moderate with positive leanings to rapprochement. He was only defeated by Ahmadinejad in a run-off, and because the current president got many votes from the rural poor who hoped he would improve their lives. He has failed miserably in this, and the recent elections delivered a rebuke to his faction for this. He has been using the "Great Satan" to retain support as an embattled leader. But the ordinary Iranian, whilst backing a "wartime" leader for now, does not want his rhetoric to get them bombed.

Do you recognise the situation?

Weak leaders invariably bombast. The trick is to talk and provide them with new ways out, not treat them as pariahs and thus give them only one way to go. The US is not under any conceivable threat from Iran, whatever your own bombasts may say. You have the strength (and the big stick) to afford magnanimity. Even failure would only get us back to where we are now, not any worse.

If the international community is paralysed, it is only because its erstwhile leader is refusing to take the practical and possibly frutiful course of diplomacy, in direct contravention of his own advisors, while fatally bogged down militarily and for reasons that no-one can fathom. We are paralysed by astonishment.

[Xiahou]

I would be in favour of a proportionate response and would expect it. Apart from the woolliness of the scenario proposed (I assume you're positing a suitcase bomb deployed by unidentified terrorists claimed by some group associated with Iranian interests) one would have to know how Iran was implicated. Let's face it, claims by your government would currently have to be treated with some degree of scepticism in such a scenario, don't you think?

So you'd have to know they did it beyond any doubt and you wouldn't believe what the US would say about it. That pretty much answers my question and makes my point. I wouldn't be surprised if Iran thought it could obfuscate enough to get out of the most serious repercussions. Many might believe them over the US and many more would say that "in kind" retaliation isn't warranted.

If the international community is paralysed, it is only because its erstwhile leader is refusing to take the practical and possibly frutiful course of diplomacy, in direct contravention of his own advisors, while fatally bogged down militarily and for reasons that no-one can fathom. We are paralysed by astonishment.

So just buy them off then? That worked remarkably well with the DPRNK. There's been lots of "diplomacy" with Iran and they keep stalling for, and getting more time. At least we seem to agree that it's likely inevitable that Iran will go nuclear. For the rest, I guess I'll just put you in the "Chirac" collumn.

[Tribesman]

So you'd have to know they did it beyond any doubt and you wouldn't believe what the US would say about it.

hey hey a fabulous lesson from the 6th century B.C.
When people are known as liars they are not believed even if they do tell the truth .
Such a pity that Bush didn't progress from my pet goat as far as Aesops tales .

[Banquo's Ghost]

So you'd have to know they did it beyond any doubt and you wouldn't believe what the US would say about it.

So you would be perfectly happy obliterating tens of thousands of people through a nuclear strike when there was doubt?

So just buy them off then? That worked remarkably well with the DPRNK. There's been lots of "diplomacy" with Iran and they keep stalling for, and getting more time. At least we seem to agree that it's likely inevitable that Iran will go nuclear. For the rest, I guess I'll just put you in the "Chirac" collumn.

Buying enemies off is a time-honoured tactic. Especially when your military options are so limited. The vast majority of your countrymen don't want another war of any description on their hands.

Of course Iran keeps stalling, they're winning. Everything the US has done so far has strengthened their hand and weakened your influence in the region.

We do agree that it is likely that Iran will obtain a nuclear deterrent. Personally, I think we should give it to them as an act of guarantee and treat them like the regional power they are, and work with them to encourage the moderates to take that responsibility seriously. There's more mileage to work with the Iranians once Ahmadinejad is toppled than with the dangerous terror harbour in Pakistan - which not only has nukes already but people in the security services that are actively supportive of al-Quaeda - and in case you forgot as President Bush has, they're the threat.

As for the "Chirac" column, as a potato-eating surrender monkey, I guess I esteem that an honour. We've been right so far, haven't we?