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?

[Hosakawa Tito]

I don't see any meaningful dialog, Kukri. Iran has no incentive to do so, currents events are going their way in the region. Keeping the "external dangers" in the forefront helps blunt the internal dissent. I'm sure they'll flirt, for appearances sake and to buy development time, but that's all it will be.

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!",

Actually, the knowledge that:

1) The US home political dissent about the war, and

2) The fact that the US would recieve no help from any other nation or ally,

3) Coupled with the fact that the US military is already stretched to the breaking point...

Is pretty obvious to even a global political layman that invading Iran,as the situation currently stands, ain't happening. Do you suggest that the powers that be in Iran are "ignorant" of this?

[macsen rufus]

Well, invasion isn't the only option to attack... [spurious leap to get back on-topic ] but I think Chirac may have had a point in saying that Tehran would be razed if it launched a bomb. However, I doubt their method of delivery would be a missile, though no prizes for guessing the target. I also agree with Chirac that the biggest threat is further proliferation.

@ Kukri -- I suspect the window is now nailed shut. From what I heard it was a rather dismissive rejection of talks...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Actually, the knowledge that:

1) The US home political dissent about the war, and

2) The fact that the US would recieve no help from any other nation or ally,

3) Coupled with the fact that the US military is already stretched to the breaking point...

Is pretty obvious to even a global political layman that invading Iran,as the situation currently stands, ain't happening. Do you suggest that the powers that be in Iran are "ignorant" of this?

I feel sure that Ahmadinejad is aware, but the US is not really threatening an invasion. The impression they wish to convey is that air strikes are easy, either by proxy through Israel or directly themselves.

The foolishness of this stance is that almost all of the Iranian facilities are deep underground, so all that would be achieved would be further alienation of world opinion, strengthening of the hardliners and more mess for the next administration to pick up.

Ahmadinejad is failing at home - pretty much all that keeps him in power now is the external threat. Just like in other nations, even a incompetent and dangerous president is backed by the people when the country is threatened.

If talks were started in good faith, we might find that Ahmadinejad would be both vulnerable and put under pressure from his own side to accomodate. As for Iran reneging on agreements, that's hardly their single preserve now is it?

[KukriKhan]

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.

[Hosakawa Tito]

As for Iran reneging on agreements, that's hardly their single preserve now is it?

I'm not exactly sure what other agreements are being alluded to, but I cannot deny nor refute the statement that the behavior is not mutually exclusive to Iran. Local politics are disgusting enough, global politics are obscene.

With the history of legitimate distrust on both sides, and taking into account the current administrations and current political climate, can you see any hope for good faith negotiations? I am afraid that I cannot. Any compromisers on either side are drowned out by the hardline extremists.

[macsen rufus]

I seem to recall (but very dimly, can't remember the details) that the US itself abrogated its NPT obligations.

[Pannonian]

I seem to recall (but very dimly, can't remember the details) that the US itself abrogated its NPT obligations.

IIRC the pursuit of bunker-busting mini-nukes was spoken of as against the spirit of NPT, perhaps even against the letter, with critics remarking the US no longer had any moral position from which to criticise others for proliferation.

[Hosakawa Tito]

source please.

[Pannonian]

source please.

New push for bunker-buster nuke

This week Congress considers the next step toward a controversial nuclear bomb that the Pentagon sees as vital.

The controversy, at least over here, being that it tries to make the first-use of nuclear weapons a practical option, thus bypassing the balance MAD brought.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Do not the development of some of these bunker systems, known and unknown, that harbor nuclear weapons and development technology also attempt to bypass/defeat a mutually assured destruction strategy? Are these same bunkers also covered under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, or are they an unseen loophole to be exploited?

Is the threat of developing these bunker-busters just more saber-rattling? I don't care to see, and pay for, another nuclear arms race. However, if these bunkers are untouchable with conventional weapons, how would that influence the MAD strategy?

[Pannonian]

Do not the development of some of these bunker systems, known and unknown, that harbor nuclear weapons and development technology also attempt to bypass/defeat a mutually assured destruction strategy? Are these same bunkers also covered under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, or are they an unseen loophole to be exploited?

Is the threat of developing these bunker-busters just more saber-rattling? I don't care to see, and pay for, another nuclear arms race. However, if these bunkers are untouchable with conventional weapons, how would that influence the MAD strategy?

First use of nuclear weapons has been the biggest no-no in international relations in the post-1945 world. No matter what anyone else does, first use is NOT OK. That has been the overriding principle in the nuclear age. Nuclear powers may threaten lesser powers with them, but no-one has seriously looked into their practical use, for nuclear weapons have no practical use, such is their fantastic, indiscriminate power. Anyone who thinks they may have tactical uses is blind to their side effects (political as well as physical). International groups have been formed to try and resolve issues that might drive countries to seek nuclear armaments. Those tools should be the first, second, third and only choice.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Even if the use of bunkers that are unbroachable by conventional weapons may embolden some to strike first, knowing the development of the weapons that can reach them has been arrested. Got it.

[Pannonian]

Even if the use of bunkers that are unbroachable by conventional weapons may embolden some to strike first, knowing the development of the weapons that can reach them has been arrested. Got it.

There's a weapon which can reach the deepest of bunkers, which can defeat even the strongest of nations. It's called diplomacy. It's a flexible weapon, ranging from sweet words to threats of bringing the country down with war. It's also an adaptable weapon, able to address the tiniest of issues or expanding to encompass the ruin of the target country, shrinking back to sweet words again once the threat has passed. It's a weapon that the Americans of yore were experts in, but which has sadly become unfashionable in recent years.

[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?

[Pannonian]

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.

Pakistan doesn't threaten Israeli interests, only American interests. Therefore they're not a threat in the eyes of the neocons. There's a consistent thread running through these stories - people who strike at the US are sidelined, while people who threaten Israel are demonised and require urgent and extreme action. Sometimes I wonder if American "patriots" prefer the Israeli flag to the Stars and Stripes.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Pakistan doesn't threaten Israeli interests, only American interests. Therefore they're not a threat in the eyes of the neocons. There's a consistent thread running through these stories - people who strike at the US are sidelined, while people who threaten Israel are demonised and require urgent and extreme action. Sometimes I wonder if American "patriots" prefer the Israeli flag to the Stars and Stripes.

You hit the nail on the head. Support for Israel is important for US interests, but no more than a settled Middle East. It has become a sacred cow that is now directly hurting those interests. I can't understand how it has come to this pass - in the same way that your Mr Blair completely disregards British interests in favour of a facile US-centric policy.

[Xiahou]

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

There will always be some doubt and they're perfectly aware of that. Thus, your original statement that Iran would never use a nuclear weapon out of fear of retaliation in kind falls flat doesn't it?

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.

Again, DPRNK showed how effective buying enemies off is. They may stop for a moment, but then they'll continue doing whatever they like- if they're caught again, they can "negotiate" for more extortion money. Meaningful sanctions would be a useful tool- but the UN again shows its uselessness with Russia/China blocking anything close to that. You seem to think that "diplomacy" consists of all carrot and no stick.

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.

Yes, Iran has been a responsible "regional power" so far hasn't it? I wonder how many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been killed by Iranian agents or the weapons they've supplied to Iraq? There's a fair chance that Ahmadinejad may go away in the next elections, but do you think he's the one that's approving their nuclear program or their actions in Iraq? He couldn't make decisions like that without approval from Iran's real leaders. It's his public statements that are getting Ahmadinejad into hot water.

[Pannonian]

Yes, Iran has been a responsible "regional power" so far hasn't it? I wonder how many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been killed by Iranian agents or the weapons they've supplied to Iraq?

Most of the American dead have been at the hands of Sunni insurgents, and their support mainly comes from Saudis and Jordanians. The Iranians have an interest in importing arms into Iraq, but not to use against Americans. Why should they want to fight the Americans when they're doing such a good job of suppressing the Sunnis for them? There might be some Iraqi nationalists like Sadr who resist both American and Iranian influence in Iraq, but in the main, Iranian interests lie in letting the Americans fight for as long and as hard as possible on their behalf. The Iranian agents you should be worried about are those in the Iraqi government who constantly plead for you to stay and safeguard their "democracy". The day you wise up will be the day their "democracy" is secure and American soldiers are welcome no more. The Iranian weapons are being stockpiled for that day, for use against Sunnis.

[Banquo's Ghost]

There will always be some doubt and they're perfectly aware of that. Thus, your original statement that Iran would never use a nuclear weapon out of fear of retaliation in kind falls flat doesn't it?

Not really. If you can't see why, there's no arguing with you.

Again, DPRNK showed how effective buying enemies off is. They may stop for a moment, but then they'll continue doing whatever they like- if they're caught again, they can "negotiate" for more extortion money. Meaningful sanctions would be a useful tool- but the UN again shows its uselessness with Russia/China blocking anything close to that. You seem to think that "diplomacy" consists of all carrot and no stick.

Whilst DPRNK is not a typical situation due to the nature of the regime, you do have a point. Iran however, has a lot of vested interests in the stability of the region. They are players, and we should explore that. In contrast, your president's strategy is all stick and no carrot - except that his "stick" has been shown to be about as dangerous a weapon as the aforementioned vegetable.

Yes, Iran has been a responsible "regional power" so far hasn't it?

Well, they were remarkably helpful to you when you invaded Afghanistan don't you think? And I know he was a good buddy at the time, but it was the Iranians who helped keep Saddam Hussein's ambitions in check for a long time in the 1980s. Since the US has demonised them in spite of the help given after 9-11, they are pursuing their goals without you. I just don't see why it's so impossible to talk to these guys, however hard it might be.

I wonder how many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been killed by Iranian agents or the weapons they've supplied to Iraq? There's a fair chance that Ahmadinejad may go away in the next elections, but do you think he's the one that's approving their nuclear program or their actions in Iraq? He couldn't make decisions like that without approval from Iran's real leaders. It's his public statements that are getting Ahmadinejad into hot water.

I wonder how many Iranians have been killed by US-armed puppets like the Shah and Saddam Hussein since the CIA toppled Mossadeq?

As for the theocracy, you are certainly right that there are many that approve Ahmadinejad's antics, but also plenty that do not. The vast majority of Iranians, clerical or civilian, do not want a war with the US. We need to give the moderates leverage because threatening with no other options only stiffens national resolve, just as in any other country.

If you are saying that the shadow of military action should be hinted at in the background to any talks, I would support you, but presently the only offer to the Iranians is "do everything we demand first and then we might, perhaps, let you beg at our table." No government will bow down to that sort of nonsensical twaddle - least of all when the demands are being made by a paper tiger in big trouble.

The US needs to quit bullying and start being realistic. It may come to war eventually, but war should not be the starting point - not least because any war will damage US interests far, far more than they are damaged already. I would have thought even dedicated Bushies would be tired of Americans returning in flag-draped coffins for no reason by now, but perhaps not.