Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Oct 3, 2009, 03:21 AM

Jackson Diehl at the Washington Compost declared President Obama's engagement policy with Iran DOA.

Seven hours of palaver in Geneva haven't altered an emerging conclusion: None of the steps the West is considering to stop the Iranian nuclear program is likely to work.
Not talks. Not sanctions, even of the "crippling" variety the Obama administration has spoken of. Not military strikes. And probably not support for regime change through the still-vibrant opposition.

Jackson Diehl - The Coming Failure on Iran - washingtonpost.com

He says the administration will try to put a positive spin on it ;but in fact ,he says the only viable option left for the administration is accept a nuclear Iran and try to contain it.

What then? Pollack, a former Clinton administration official, says there is one obvious Plan B: “containment,” a policy that got its name during the Cold War. The point would be to limit Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons or exercise its influence through the region by every means possible short of war — and to be prepared to sustain the effort over years, maybe decades. It's an option that has been lurking at the back of the debate about Iran for years. “In their heart of hearts I think the Obama administration knows that this is where this is going,” Pollack says.

He says the administration will break this news to us gradually as it becomes apparent that all other options will not work.

we'll keep hearing about negotiations, sanctions and possibly Israeli military action as ways to stop an Iranian bomb. By far the best chance for a breakthrough, as I see it, lies in a victory by the Iranian opposition over the current regime. If that doesn't happen, it may soon get harder to disguise the hollowness of Western policy.

HMMMMM. By far the best chance for a breakthrough, as I see it, lies in a victory by the Iranian opposition over the current regime.
Where have we heard that before ?
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...nt-366943.html
But when the people took to the streets after the stolen elections President Obama voted absent .

What happens to Obama's grand proclamations(grand illusions ) of moving towards a nuclear free world when the inevidible Iranian bomb sparks a nuclear arms race in one of the most volatile and strategically important regions of the world ?

Wouldn't it be ironic if the green revolution saved Obama from a complete policy failure? I'm sure the opposition will remember the support that America gave them in their times of greatest need. Cemented in their minds will be a time when American intervened against the people in 1953;and refused to intervene on their behalf in 2009 .

speechlesstx · Oct 3, 2009, 06:02 AM

What's incredible about this whole thing is once again it's all about Obama. With Obama sitting at the head of the UN Security Council he was also sitting on the Qom revelation because he "didn't want to 'spoil the image of success' for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N." and his idealistic disarmament resolution... throwing Sarkozy under the bus in the process. Krauthammer explains:

Don't take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama's naïveté. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports the Wall Street Journal (citing Le Monde), Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later -- in Pittsburgh. I've got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing "White House officials," did not want to "dilute" his disarmament resolution "by diverting to Iran."

Diversion? It's the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

Yes. And from Obama's star turn as planetary visionary: "The administration told the French," reports the Wall Street Journal, "that it didn't want to 'spoil the image of success' for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N."

Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that "we live in a real world, not a virtual world."

He explained: "President Obama has even said, 'I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].' Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite."

Sarkozy's unspoken words? "And yet, sacré bleu, he's sitting on Qom!"

And then fresh off this image-building exercise he heads to Copenhagen to dazzle some more. Obama, legend in his own mind.

inthebox · Oct 3, 2009, 03:24 PM

Hey, POTUS Obama:

Isn't it easier to contain a power BEFORE it becomes a nuclear power? As to Obama's dream of unilateral US nuclear disarmament, why stop there? Get rid of bombs and fighter planes and tanks and automatic weapons...

Sad that the Sarkozy is a hawk compared to Obama.

G&P

tomder55 · Oct 4, 2009, 02:52 AM

Isn't it easier to contain a power BEFORE it becomes a nuclear power?

Yes ;and containment after the fact assumes you are dealing with rationale actors.You also have to assume a long commitment to the policy and sacrifices to keep the policy intact .As an example ,the containment policy of the cold war era cost the US over 100,000 lives in combat and more than once took us to the brink. Also the containment policy as outlined by Kennan always assumed regime change as the end game.

excon · Oct 4, 2009, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Obama's failed Iran initiative

Hello tom:

That's a nice right wing spin. It just doesn't happen to be true. In fact, he accomplished MORE in one day of negotiations than in 8 years of threats by the dufus.

Iran pledged that within weeks it would allow the inspection of a previously covert uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, announced that he'd head to Tehran to work out the details.

In addition to agreeing to allow full inspections of its Qom facility, Iran yesterday also did this: Iran agreed in principle Thursday to ship most of its current stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be refined for exclusively peaceful uses, in what Western diplomats called a significant, but interim, measure to ease concerns over its nuclear program.. .

Under the tentative uranium deal, Iran would ship what a U.S. official said was "most" of its approximately 3,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be further refined, to 19.75 percent purity. That is much less than the purity needed to fuel a nuclear bomb. French technicians then would fabricate it into fuel rods and return it to Tehran to power a nuclear research reactor that's used to make isotopes for nuclear medicine.

Now you can call that a failure, if you're a rightwinger, and you probably will. But MOST of us know success when we see it.

excon

paraclete · Oct 4, 2009, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by inthebox

Hey, POTUS Obama:

Isn't it easier to contain a power BEFORE it becomes a nuclear power? As to Obama's dream of unilateral US nuclear disarmament, why stop there? Get rid of bombs and fighter planes and tanks and automatic weapons ...

Sad that the Sarkozy is a hawk compared to Obama.

G&P

Instead of ban the bomb, you want to ban the gun. I don't think that proposal has legs in the US:D

inthebox · Oct 4, 2009, 01:21 PM

You ever hear about "bringing a knife to a gunfight?"

Right now we have a gun and Iran a knife. Obama would do nothing about Iran getting a gun, while in the name of "peace" would have the US get rid of its gun[s].

G&P

speechlesstx · Oct 4, 2009, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

That's a nice right wing spin. It just doesn't happen to be true. In fact, he accomplished MORE in one day of negotiations than in 8 years of threats by the dufus.

Iran pledged that within weeks it would allow the inspection of a previously covert uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, announced that he'd head to Tehran to work out the details.

And you actually trust a pledge from Iran and anything from El Baradei, the guy who thinks Israel is the number one threat to the middle east? The guy who likely deliberately hid evidence of Iran's nuclear program? The guy who's been whitewashing Iran's nuclear program all along? You definitely have drank the koolaid, ex.

tomder55 · Oct 5, 2009, 05:13 AM

Steve is 100% right . ElBaradei ran cover for the Iranian program for years. Now why did he do it ? Well perhaps because he is married to Aida Elkachef ;an Iranian and first cousin of the hardliner regime member Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani... who in turn is a close associate of the tyrant Ayatollah Khomenei.

The Qom installation will be inspected when ? Oct 25,as in 3 weeks from the announcement . Plenty of time for them to scrub evidence of processing for weapon grade material . This concession does not impress me. The President got caught flatfooted on this plant and withheld announcing the fact that we knew of it when it would've had it's greatest impact... during his address at the UN. But during his" negotiations" why didn't he insist on an IMMEDIATE inspection ? Under the non-proliferation treaty the IAEA has the right to do that.Why would that even be a bargaining chip ?

Let's move on to the "deal in principle " for Iran to ship the equivalent of one bomb worth of low enriched uranium to Russia for the purpose of enriching it into fuel rods for Tehran's research reactor.
A "deal in principle" does not constitute a deal . This is not the 1st time this idea was floated . They can take months and years bargaining over the specifics while the Iranians continue to do their work on bomb grade material.
This move guts UN security council resolutions that prohibit any enrichment by the Iranians. In essence the President who puts so much weight on UN and International agreements has himself agreed "in principle " to unilaterally violate a UN resolution. He has made it a point to proclaim that Iran must live up to UN resolutions while he himself has just proven they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Seems to me that much of the Iranian work on making bomb grade material is the conversion of low grade uranium to weapon grade. Their work will be much easier if the Russians are doing a good chunk of the work for them. By delivering rods of uranium that are almost 20% enriched to them they will be well on their way to enriching those rods up to the 90% needed for weapon grade. Not only that ; but they could burn the enriched rods and still convert the waste to plutonium.

Israel turned over a list of names of Russian nuclear scientists they believe are helping the Iranians in their nuke development . Are we to believe they are rogue scientists or are they there under the approval of the Russians ? Why do we think the Russians will be honest brokers in this process when they have built reactors in Iran ,and Iran is a client state purchasing a wide range of Russian weapon systems ?

You may think the President made progress in the Geneva meeting .I think it is the same old same old . This is no different then the 'kick the can down the road ' 'dog and pony show' that was used by the NORKS while they went full speed ahead in their program.

Nothing better illustrates this" delay making a decision " attitude of this administration then the recent report by the UN saying that for all practical purposes the Iranians have accumulated the means to make a bomb;and that Iran is closer to being able to make an atomic bomb than U.S. reports or ElBaradei have indicated. The administration responded to this by sending out national security adviser retired Gen. James Jones to the Sunday talking head programs yesterday to dispute the UN report. Ridiculous . Like I said ;the President likes to vote absent.

speechlesstx · Oct 5, 2009, 06:25 AM

What exactly is an "agreement in principle" anyway? How much is that worth? Didn't Obama give them 2 weeks, not 3? It's even more fluid of a "deadline" than that according to State Dept. Spokesman Ian Kelly:

MR. KELLY: I don't think that there's a hard and fast deadline. I think that we made it quite clear this was a matter of some urgency, that we expected them to take urgent and concrete steps to open up this facility, and not only just open it up but also make sure that we were able to – or that the IAEA would be able to talk to some of the engineers there and see documents, see plans. So I mean, it is – as I said before, it is a matter of some urgency that they open this place up, but I don't know if we've had an actual --

QUESTION: The two weeks – we shouldn't look at that as too much written in stone?

MR. KELLY: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: The two – the idea that they've got two weeks to do it, you don't think is actually –

MR. KELLY: I don't know that it's written in stone necessarily, but I think we'll find out more details when – after Mr. El Baradei's trip.

Boy, right in and you've got a question.

QUESTION: Well, (inaudible) because I didn't understand something. It was my understanding that the Iranians did not agree to do it, that they agreed to consider sending the material abroad, which is different than agreeing to actually doing it, and that they were going to have a meeting to discuss it.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Now, you just said that it was your understanding that they actually agreed to do it.

MR. KELLY: It is my understanding that they agreed to do it.

QUESTION: Because –

MR. KELLY: They –

QUESTION: – you're sure?

MR. KELLY: Well, okay –

QUESTION: Just because –

MR. KELLY: – they agreed in principle to do it, is my understanding...

MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, it won't be a done deal until all the details are ironed out by the IAEA...

QUESTION: I have a question about the two weeks. You said Iran – and the President said two weeks. Or what?

MR. KELLY: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: Or what? Like, what if they don't –

QUESTION: That question was just asked, literally.

QUESTION: Well, I don't think it was answered, because I –

MR. KELLY: Well, look, this is the beginning of intense diplomatic activity. What you have is you have El Baradei going in this weekend to, as I say, to iron out these details that were – of the agreement in principle. You also have a meeting in Vienna on October 18, and this will be to specifically address the logistical and technical aspects of the Tehran research reactor proposal. So let's see what comes out of that.

QUESTION: But I'm just saying that, like, you put out – the U.S. put out there two weeks. So what are you saying? That if it doesn't happen in the next two weeks, you're going to take the offer off the table? Or do you really think that it –

MR. KELLY: No, I'm not saying that.

QUESTION: Okay, well, until – no, no, no.

MR. KELLY: I'm saying that there's not – we don't have like a drop-dead date.

Basically we have an "agreement" to be ironed out by El Baradei and 2 weeks means "whenever is fine." Yep, Obama got a big win there.

Forgot the link

speechlesstx · Oct 13, 2009, 08:18 AM

Oops...

German Ship Transporting Arms for Iran

US troops boarded a German-owned freighter in early October and found eight containers full of ammunition, allegedly headed to Syria from Iran. The shipment is in violation of a UN weapons embargo and has become a source of chagrin in Berlin.

An "embarrassing affair," is how one German diplomat described it. The official could also have added: potentially damaging to trans-Atlantic relations.

In an operation reported on by SPIEGEL over the weekend, US soldiers entered the freighter Hansa India in the Gulf of Suez at the beginning of October and discovered seven containers full of 7.62 millimeter ammunition suitable for Kalashnikov rifles. An eighth container was full of cartridges suitable for the manufacture of additional rounds. The incident is particularly awkward for Berlin as the Hansa India is registered to the Hamburg-based shipping company Leonhardt & Blumberg.

Investigators suspect that the arms were part of an Iranian shipment bound for either the Syrian army or for Hezbollah, the militant Islamist group. US officials have pointed out that the delivery is in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, which prohibits arms shipments either into or out of Iran.

As I understand it Syria manufactures their own 7.62 MM cartridges so Hezbollah is undoubtedly the intended recipient. Seven containers is a lot of bullets from Iran to be aimed at Israeli citizens, while the feckless UN continues to push for prosecuting Israelis for war crimes. Netanyahu told the UN what they could do with their war crimes report by the way...

tomder55 · Oct 13, 2009, 09:57 AM

As I posted in a op Ex started about " torture " ,under Obama our relationship with Germany is becoming quite strained (they have nixed him on extra German troops for Afghanistan and NATO expansion) ,and Angie Merkel is gravitating towards the Russian sphere. The Germans were also major players in the undermining of the UN oil-for food program and Iraqi sanctions . For them ,it is economic and energy security that drives their policy so it does not surprise me in the least that any attempt at meaningful economic pressure against Iran will be less than effective .To the Germans it is only an "embarrassing affair" because they got caught .

ETWolverine · Oct 13, 2009, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

That's a nice right wing spin. It just doesn't happen to be true. In fact, he accomplished MORE in one day of negotiations than in 8 years of threats by the dufus.

Iran pledged that within weeks it would allow the inspection of a previously covert uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, announced that he'd head to Tehran to work out the details.

In addition to agreeing to allow full inspections of its Qom facility, Iran yesterday also did this: Iran agreed in principle Thursday to ship most of its current stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be refined for exclusively peaceful uses, in what Western diplomats called a significant, but interim, measure to ease concerns over its nuclear program. . . .

Under the tentative uranium deal, Iran would ship what a U.S. official said was "most" of its approximately 3,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be further refined, to 19.75 percent purity. That is much less than the purity needed to fuel a nuclear bomb. French technicians then would fabricate it into fuel rods and return it to Tehran to power a nuclear research reactor that's used to make isotopes for nuclear medicine.

Now you can call that a failure, if you're a rightwinger, and you probably will. But MOST of us know success when we see it.

excon

When will that inspection be taking place... because as far as I have heard, it ain't happened yet, and there is no specific schedule for it to take place.

Which means that Obama ain't accomplished $h!t...

He must be too busy picking out a tux for the NPP award ceremony to actually get Ahmadinejad to pin down a date by which an inspection will take place.

paraclete · Oct 13, 2009, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

As I posted in a op Ex started about " torture " ,under Obama our relationship with Germany is becoming quite strained (they have nixed him on extra German troops for Afghanistan and NATO expansion) ,and Angie Merkel is gravitating towards the Russian sphere. The Germans were also major players in the undermining of the UN oil-for food program and Iraqi sanctions . For them ,it is economic and energy security that drives their policy so it does not suprise me in the least that any attempt at meaningful economic pressure against Iran will be less than effective .To the Germans it is only an "embarrassing affair" because they got caught .

Germany has a long history of the double play, saying one thing and doing another, but are they supposed to inspect the cargo of every flagged vessel