What a change....Vive la D'ifferance!

yep, we try real hard to keep the crew entertained!

And the funnier thing is that Washington, London, and now Paris under the new Sarkozy government is making accusations that Iran's nuclear program is specifically designed for military use, but again, no evidence to back up them up.

 

It's 2002 all over again because history is repeating itself, and the media seems to go along the White House's rhetoric once more.

 

We're in rerun mode. Go figure.

All the Iranians have to do is say come on in and look around. Instead, they want to play chicken. Even some of their own leaders are getting tired of Ammadatjean for his theatrics.

All the Iranians have to do is say come on in and look around. Instead, they want to play chicken. Even some of their own leaders are getting tired of Ammadatjean for his theatrics.

 

The Iranians are already cooperating with the IAEA on the nuclear issue, and yet the Security Council is still divided when it comes to harsher sanctions, or any type of military strike in the near future. But, I will agree with your comment that the Iranian president's rhetoric isn't helping their case.

This is the latest statement I can find on Iran from the IAEA:

• The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran;



• Iran has provided the Agency with additional information and access needed to resolve a number of long outstanding issues, such as the scope and nature of past plutonium experiments;



• Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence-building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak – "this is regrettable", he commented; and



• While the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, Iran and the Secretariat agreed last month on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues.

So, though progress is being made, we can still see that there is a lot of stalling going on and issues that need to be clarified (finally) Perhaps the more strident tone of the UNSC and the US in particular has booted them into being a little more cooperative.

Also, the crux of the problem remains as ElBaradei goes on to elaborate (italics mine:

Naturally, Iran´s active cooperation and transparency is the key to full and timely implementation of the work plan. If the Agency were able to provide credible assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran´s past and current nuclear programme, this would go a long way towards building confidence about Iran´s nuclear programme, and could create the conditions for a comprehensive and durable solution.

Let's hope for the best.

" All the Iranians have to do is say come on in and look around. "

 

Ahmadinejad is not on my Xmas card list but if I put myself into his shoes I can see that the neighbor to my east of my house made thier money by growing and selling drugs and had a lot of bad poeple in it that were undeseriable. My neighbor that lived to the west side of my house was a person that I did not get along with and we often fought.

 

So one day here come's the mighty police force that is going to clean up my neighbors and get the hood in some kind of order that will make me look like the bad guy that needs to be cleaned up. After 5 years of your neighbors being taken care of by the mighty police force all you can see is they don't really have a handle on how to take care of business but all of a sudden they start pointing the finger at you.

 

If it were only so simple as the Iraninans saying "come on in" oil would'nt be on it's way to $100 soon.

okay, I see your point but don't agree only because Iran has been playing chicken for more than five years, as they readily admitted. THis is a long game and they will continue to say 'peaceful uses' and not allow access to prove it.

Even when we were not in on the talks, the Euros could not convince them to be more transparent.

The  way I see it, if it is just peaceful uses, let the IAEA in and allow full monitoring. No sweat.

The alternative is not something Israel or the US would like to see come to fruition for very good reasons.

" I see your point but don't agree only because Iran has been playing chicken for more than five years "

 

I see you point and I agree with it. I also think the part about playing "chicken" is along the exact same lines of Saddams actions after Gulf 1. Weather 41 knew it or not the best thing he could have done and really did was leave a weakened Saddam in power. By doing so Saddam still acted like a really tough guy to be feared which helped to keep Iran in check and not going back to war with him.

 

If Saddam had ever acted as weak as he really was I think Iran would have finished the job. For the same reasons Iran can not back down and act weak because now they have real threats on 2 sides of them instead of one phony threat on one side.

 

I can't speak for you but if we go in to disprupt another country I'm going to need a lot more questions answered about going in, in the first place and what are the plan for an "end game". I know the talk radio show commandos have already figured out we can do everything with "airpower" but their track record while serving in the active military is non-existant.

Also, the crux of the problem remains as ElBaradei goes on to elaborate (italics mine:

Naturally, Iran´s active cooperation and transparency is the key to full and timely implementation of the work plan. If the Agency were able to provide credible assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran´s past and current nuclear programme, this would go a long way towards building confidence about Iran´s nuclear programme, and could create the conditions for a comprehensive and durable solution.

Let's hope for the best.

 

The IAEA reported in late August that there was no proof that Tehran's current nuclear program is geared toward a weapons program. If there was a credible claim beyond any doubt that there is intention to do so, then the Security Council would have acted differently. So far, it looks like not all parties agree on this issue, and instead Moscow and Beijing appear to have good diplomatic relations with Iran despite the fact that they voted for mild sanctions back in December 2006.

 

On a different note, the media is already following the Bush administration's line on Iran in order to prepare the American People that war is on its way, and that we will see a bombing campaign sooner or later. But on the other hand, it's still unclear if that will in deed happen because of the latest developments between Turkey and Kurdish Iraq.

 nope, IAEA has not been able to find anything out and their latest diplo-speak shows there are still problems with transparency. Russia and China are just big chimps selling as much as they can to folks like Iran and Myanmar and North Korea.

Anyway, I don't think the US is going in for a variety of reasons, but yeah, the Turkey thing is also of concern.

Finally, the Iranians themselves have been asking a lot of questions lately and it is not all rosy in central park these days. Gas is getting very expensive despite the high oil income they receive and young folks are starting to ask a lot more questions about the present foreign policy.

My bet is that any action would come from Israel, but even they are not that stupid. Syria is a different story.

Lot's of actors here.

" Lot's of actors here. "

 

Ain't that the truth. To compound matters a bit further the poor Iraqi's who have had poor results with our rebuliding of their infrastructure are looking for something better and guess where?

 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iraqi-electricity-deals-with-iran-china-irk-us/2007/10/18/1192300951760.html

 

Looks like 5 billion does not buy what it use to.

 

:-(

good article with some very valid points. we all know the insurgents do not want a stable supply of anything as that would cut out part of their raison d'etre and their effectiveness, so they aim for infrastructure....classic.

So, even if China and Iran get in there, they would probably face the same problems. Wait till some worker from Shanghai is beheaded! Ugh

nope, IAEA has not been able to find anything out and their latest diplo-speak shows there are still problems with transparency. Russia and China are just big chimps selling as much as they can to folks like Iran and Myanmar and North Korea.

Anyway, I don't think the US is going in for a variety of reasons, but yeah, the Turkey thing is also of concern.

Finally, the Iranians themselves have been asking a lot of questions lately and it is not all rosy in central park these days. Gas is getting very expensive despite the high oil income they receive and young folks are starting to ask a lot more questions about the present foreign policy.

My bet is that any action would come from Israel, but even they are not that stupid. Syria is a different story.

Lot's of actors here.

 

When did the IAEA confirm Iranian non-cooperation in its latest report then ? Of course Russia and China are looking out for their interests toward Iran because it's in their own backyard and it's a highly strategic piece, most especially when the war on Iraq destabilized the region since 2003. And I might add that your comment applies as much to the other three powers that also have good relations with other repressive regimes on any given issue. What's your point ??

 

And I will agree that people in Iran are generally fed up with the ruling clerics, but any strike on Iran's nuclear facilities even though there is absolutely no evidence of a nuclear weapons program - will most likely rally the population behind the Ayatollahs. You only have to look at Hezbollah's standing in the Mid East after the war in 2006. And a  full scale war against the Syrians will not help the entire situation just like a Turkish war in northern Iraq won't either.