What now? Will anyone do anything? Increased sanctions, Israeli attack, or will Obama and the rest of the world finally admit they're not going to do anything about it. <_<
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/world/middleeast/27nuke.html?_r=1&hp
QuoteU.N. Nuclear Agency Calls Iran Inquiry 'Dead End'
By JACK HEALY
Published: November 26, 2009
The director of the United Nations nuclear watchdog warned Thursday that its investigation into Iran's nuclear program had "effectively reached a dead end" after more than a year of stonewalling by Tehran.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the departing director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, issued an unusually direct rebuke of Iran's intransigence in a speech in Vienna, saying that it had been more than a year since Iran had answered questions about the extent of its nuclear ambitions, including suspicions that it is pursuing nuclear weapons.
"It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues," Dr. ElBaradei said in remarks to the nuclear agency's governors. "We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us."
The agency's 35-member board is expected to vote on a resolution criticizing Iran for failing to tell the agency about a uranium enrichment plant near the city of Qum until confronted by the West this fall with evidence of its existence. It would be the first time in nearly four years the United Nations body has passed a resolution against Iran's nuclear activities.
Iranian officials insist that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the United States and European countries believe Tehran is enriching uranium with the ultimate aim of developing a nuclear weapon. International inspectors worry that Iran could be concealing other atomic facilities.
Dr. ElBaradei also said he was "disappointed" that Iran had not accepted a United Nations-brokered deal that would oblige it to send most of its low-enriched nuclear fuel abroad, where it would be processed and returned for use in a medical reactor.
The draft agreement was supported by the United States and European powers who saw it as a way to delay for a year any possibility that Iran could "sprint" to a nuclear weapons capacity, a possibility that has escalated tensions, particularly with Israel.
Dr. ElBaradei's remarks, which come just days before he steps down as head of the nuclear agency, seem to reflect his frustration with Tehran's failure to respond to his low-key approach to negotiations. In recent weeks, talks with Iran about the draft nuclear agreement have devolved into a back-and-forth of defiant statements from Iranian officials and admonishments from Western leaders, with no sign of an agreement in sight.
Dr. ElBaradei also seemed to offer a veiled dig at powers like the United States for refusing to share their intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, for fear of compromising intelligence or displaying all their cards to the Iranian government.
"It would help if we were able to share with Iran more of the material that is at the center of these concerns," Dr. ElBaradei said.
Still, he seemed to hold out hope that Iranian leaders might return to the table to defuse a standoff.
"The proposed agreement represents a unique opportunity to address a humanitarian need and create space for negotiations," he said. "This opportunity should be seized and it would be highly regrettable if it was missed."
Obama doesn't need to say anything. He just needs to stall until they test a bomb.
Has anyone really doubted that anyone would be able to stop Iran from getting the bomb? No one wants to militarily invade Iran, an airstrike or two will likely only delay, not stop (and to be honest, I'd be surprised if an airstrike did occur. Israel hit facilities in Iraq and Syria when both were well behind where Iran is now), and Russia seems to think it's in their best interests for every country hostile to America to get nuclear weapons.
I am shocked. Now as soon as someone gets me a viable plan to deal with this that doesn't cause the Straits to close and the global economy to collapse get back to me.
I believe Obama - or someone from the White House - has said they're trying to prepare a plan for 'crippling' sanctions. The most useful would be to stop petrol sales to Iran (Iran's a large petrol importer, it doesn't have the refining capability for its domestic market).
I'm not sure about the diplomatic timetable though. So far I've been very impressed with Obama's handling of Iran.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 26, 2009, 09:32:18 PM
I am shocked. Now as soon as someone gets me a viable plan to deal with this that doesn't cause the Straits to close and the global economy to collapse get back to me.
Bomb Bomb Bomb
Bomb Bomb Iran
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2009, 09:41:46 PM
So far I've been very impressed with Obama's handling of Iran.
Why?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2009, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2009, 09:41:46 PM
So far I've been very impressed with Obama's handling of Iran.
Why?
Obama's basically returned to US policy with Iran from Reagan to Clinton - that is the Americans are willing to meet at a senior level with the Iranians if there'll be good faith talks. That puts the onus on the Iranians which is, I think, correct and diplomatically important.
I believe that he briefed NATO allies about the second nuclear site a while in advance, then got the British and the French to present it to the Security Council and got the EU-3 to agree to a joint ramping up the pressure about the need for Iran to begin to cooperate. It was very deftly handled.
Now policy hasn't changed that significantly. There's very little difference between what the Bush administration's policy was and the Obama administration's. But I think that while the Bush administration was actually more or less at one with the EU-3 on Iran the Republican foreign policy establishment and certain figures in the administration didn't agree with it. I think that weakened the US's hand in convincing Europe to go for sanctions because they didn't necessarily feel the US was actually supporting the diplomatic process. I also think the US's greater involvement with those negotiations has strengthened the hand we have when it comes to Russia - for similar reasons, but also because they're more likely to deal with the US on this subject than they are the EU-3.
So far I think there seems to be more support for sanctions - as I say the White House is talking 'crippling' sanctions, so I imagine it'll target oil. I believe the Canadians, Brits, Germans and French are now talking about a separate sanctions regime if the UN doesn't support them. The Russians have, interestingly, said that sanctions are now possibly 'inevitable' and, more importantly, they've put effectively an indefinite hold on shipping uranium for that nuclear plant they're building. I believe they were meant to deliver six months ago and they've now said there's a problem which will require them to delay that by at least nine months. Though to be fair they signed on to build that power plant in the early nineties so this might not be deliberate policy, it could well be a series of fuck-ups.
All in all I feel the West's working with more purpose and more coherently, I think the Iranians are more rattled - both internally and because their 'friends' (like Russia) aren't seeming so helpful. Of course all of this isn't down to Obama. I think the part his public diplomacy played in the election protests, for example, was minimal at best but I think the diplomatic work in Europe and Russia's been very impressive so far. There's more to do, of course, but so far I'm encouraged.
On the same story and perhaps more importantly the IAEA's formally expressed their concerns:
Quote
Iran told to halt work on nuclear plant by UN watchdog
International Atomic Energy Agency vote could form the basis for a future binding resolution by the UN security council
* Ian Black, Middle East editor
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 27 November 2009 12.45 GMT
Iran faced rare international unity today when the governing board of the UN nuclear watchdog issued a formal demand that it immediately halt work on a secret uranium enrichment plant at the centre of concerns that the country is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
Russia and China lined up with the US, Britain, France and Germany to censure Iran in a vote by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), passing the first resolution against Iran in nearly four years by a 25-3 margin.
The IAEA vote could form the basis for a future binding resolution by the UN security council, which in turn could be used to impose sanctions.
Gordon Brown was quick to warn of punitive measures: "I believe the next stage will have to be sanctions if Iran does not respond to what is a very clear vote from the world community," he said in Trinidad and Tobago where he is attending a Commonwealth summit.
The Foreign Office called the resolution "the strongest possible signal to Iran that its actions and intentions remain a matter of grave international concern".
But it also left the door open for compliance. "We are waiting for Iran to respond meaningfully," a Foreign Office statement said. "But if it is clear that Iran has chosen not to do so, we will have no alternative but to consider further pressure on Iran in line with the dual-track policy we have been pursuing."
The six countries leading the negotiations made clear a week ago that they were unhappy with Iran's foot-dragging after talks in Geneva and Vienna and its apparent rejection of a deal to transfer 75% of its low-enriched uranium abroad to be used by a Tehran reactor that makes isotopes for cancer treatments. They urged Iran "to reconsider the opportunity offered by this agreement ... and to engage seriously with us in dialogue and negotiations".
Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, said after today's vote: "Adoption of this resolution is not only unhelpful in improving the current situation but will jeopardise the conducive environment vitally needed for success in the process of Geneva and Vienna negotiations expected to lead to a common understanding."
Iran's standard response is to warn that it will reduce co-operation if put under pressure, but western diplomats believe it will not want to alienate its own supporters by acting illegally. Cuba, Malaysia and Venezuela opposed the IAEA resolution while Brazil, Egypt, Pakistan, South Africa, Turkey and Afghanistan abstained.
President Barack Obama has warned there could be a package of sanctions against Iran within weeks, but the timing is crucial, not least because of differences on the security council and the key question of how effective any punitive measures would be.
Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Iran, said: "If the present set of talks are even faintly alive I don't think it is in the interests of the six to say 'let's move to sanctions now'. But it's inevitable that sanctions discussions will get more real."
Gloom about the apparent impasse deepened yesterday with a statement by Mohamed ElBaradei, the outgoing director-general of the IAEA, expressing dismay over Iran's failure, until September, to notify the IAEA of the site near Qom that it had been secretly building for two years, and its failure to address allegations about a suspected nuclear weapons programme.
"It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues," he said. "We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us."
Well Shelf, your assessment sounds very optimistic to me, to say the least. Seems we've heard this language about "this time we really mean it" plenty of times before. And on the con side we have Obama's cynical/realpolitik avoidance of verbal support for the election protesters.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2009, 11:31:59 AM
Well Shelf, your assessment sounds very optimistic to me, to say the least. Seems we've heard this language about "this time we really mean it" plenty of times before. And on the con side we have Obama's cynical/realpolitik avoidance of verbal support for the election protesters.
Do you think Obama should have voiced more support for them?
Quote from: Faeelin on November 27, 2009, 11:41:41 AM
Do you think Obama should have voiced more support for them?
If there had been a high likelihood that throwing them under the bus would have led to Iran ending it's nuke program I would probably have been in favor. I don't think that's the case. I think Obama gave away something for nothing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2009, 11:43:54 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 27, 2009, 11:41:41 AM
Do you think Obama should have voiced more support for them?
If there had been a high likelihood that throwing them under the bus would have led to Iran ending it's nuke program I would probably have been in favor. I don't think that's the case. I think Obama gave away something for nothing.
You're kidding right?
The last thing the Iranian opposition wanted was for a US President to trumpet his support publicly.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2009, 11:50:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2009, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2009, 09:41:46 PM
So far I've been very impressed with Obama's handling of Iran.
Why?
Obama's basically returned to US policy with Iran from Reagan to Clinton - that is the Americans are willing to meet at a senior level with the Iranians if there'll be good faith talks. That puts the onus on the Iranians which is, I think, correct and diplomatically important.
Well, I agree that it puts the onus on the Iranians, but since I don't think they give a shit about that, I don't see the point.
Gotta agree with Minsky that the Iranian opposition certainly didn't want public support for the U.S. government.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2009, 12:33:10 PM
You're kidding right?
The last thing the Iranian opposition wanted was for a US President to trumpet his support publicly.
Are you concluding this based on statements by the opposition or through inference? Either way, if that was part of the calculation that didn't pan out too well either.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2009, 12:33:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2009, 11:43:54 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on November 27, 2009, 11:41:41 AM
Do you think Obama should have voiced more support for them?
If there had been a high likelihood that throwing them under the bus would have led to Iran ending it's nuke program I would probably have been in favor. I don't think that's the case. I think Obama gave away something for nothing.
You're kidding right?
The last thing the Iranian opposition wanted was for a US President to trumpet his support publicly.
And the reason the pro-democracy protestors were holding up signs in english asking for help was?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2009, 12:55:01 PM
Are you concluding this based on statements by the opposition or through inference?
Inferred from the fact that both principal opposition candidates are rabidly US; and from the fact that the Iranian government has fallen over itself in its rush to claim that the opposition is being stage-managed from Washington.
QuoteEither way, if that was part of the calculation that didn't pan out too well either.
How so?
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 27, 2009, 05:34:40 PM
And the reason the pro-democracy protestors were holding up signs in english asking for help was?
Same reason everyone everywhere who wants global media attention prints sign in English: to get broadcast on the CNN and BBC prime-time feeds.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2009, 05:55:50 PM
How so?
Ahmejibajibad is still in office. The opposition is in jail. Where's the upside?
You can speculate that some Iranians joined the protests because it was untainted by the Great Satan, and I can just as easily speculate that some stayed away because of US indifference.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2009, 06:06:07 PM
Ahmejibajibad is still in office. The opposition is in jail. Where's the upside?
It hasn't been that long yet.
QuoteI can just as easily speculate that some stayed away because of US indifference.
I agree that it is easy to speculate, but it is hard to support that particular speculation, even with inferential proof.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2009, 05:57:07 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 27, 2009, 05:34:40 PM
And the reason the pro-democracy protestors were holding up signs in english asking for help was?
Same reason everyone everywhere who wants global media attention prints sign in English: to get broadcast on the CNN and BBC prime-time feeds.
Why bother if the protestors didn't want outside help?
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 27, 2009, 07:09:17 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2009, 05:57:07 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 27, 2009, 05:34:40 PM
And the reason the pro-democracy protestors were holding up signs in english asking for help was?
Same reason everyone everywhere who wants global media attention prints sign in English: to get broadcast on the CNN and BBC prime-time feeds.
Why bother if the protestors didn't want outside help?
To demonstrate their power to command world attention and to reinforce their credibility as a significant mass movement.
No one likes foreign interference in their own national political affairs. It figures that tone deaf GOPtards haven't learned their lesson from the last time we fucked with Iran. A verbal or financial endorsement from America and/or Jewland would be the quickest way to marginalize legitimate opposition forces in Iran.
Quote from: Fate on November 27, 2009, 07:56:57 PM
No one likes foreign interference in their own national political affairs.
Depends.
Quote from: Neil on November 27, 2009, 08:03:51 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 27, 2009, 07:56:57 PM
No one likes foreign interference in their own national political affairs.
Depends.
Glorious Revolution FTW :w00t:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2009, 06:24:23 PM
I agree that it is easy to speculate, but it is hard to support that particular speculation, even with inferential proof.
I can call your unstated assertion bad names too, but where does that get us?
Everything else being equal, people prefer to be on the winning side, and tend to be encouraged when others say they are doing the right thing. On the Great Satan side of the debate you have the unproven (to my mind) assumption that the people (as opposed to the state) of Iran buy into it, and think that being on the same side as the US automatically delegitimizes a cause.
Quote from: Fate on November 27, 2009, 07:56:57 PM
No one likes foreign interference in their own national political affairs. It figures that tone deaf GOPtards haven't learned their lesson from the last time we fucked with Iran. A verbal or financial endorsement from America and/or Jewland would be the quickest way to marginalize legitimate opposition forces in Iran.
Good thing we stayed away from all the color revolutions. Or South Africa under apartheid. Or Zimbabwe. Or Myanmar.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2009, 11:43:54 AM
If there had been a high likelihood that throwing them under the bus would have led to Iran ending it's nuke program I would probably have been in favor. I don't think that's the case. I think Obama gave away something for nothing.
The US was exactly right to not talk about supporting the protestors but rather to phrase it in terms of condemning violence against them. Making a statement of support, or whatever, would have made Americans feel warm and fuzzy and good. I think the insistence I heard on the need to show support for the protestors was a ridiculous desire for the political equivalent of auto-erotica.
I think you underestimate the power of nationalism and the unpopularity of foreign powers being perceived as meddling. It would have also played into the hands of the regime, especially given that their propaganda has said that these protests were largely concocted by the Americans (the protestors countered that Ahmedinejad's regime was basically a Russian puppet). State TV played footage on loop suggesting that Bush, McCain, Obama and Soros were behind it all.
If you want to support movements like that then quietly funnel money their way. Condemn existing regimes. But I think it's mostly a mistake to get too close to protest/revolutionary movements because they'll look like puppets and will be easier to dismiss. That could have changed now that Obama's in office - I imagine Bush saying 'we support your struggle' was hemlock to most movements - but I don't think it's changed that much.
QuoteWell Shelf, your assessment sounds very optimistic to me, to say the least.
Is it? I thought it was mostly factual.
I don't know what'll happen. I think the Russians have other interests in the region and we don't know how they'll behave. My sense is that the EU-3 have had their hand strengthened in negotiations and are now far more willing to consider sanctions. But this is the problem with asking for an assessment of diplomacy. The real answer is we don't know. I've no idea what the Quai d'Orsay or the Kremlin are thinking and if it's had an effect.
So all I can do is, from what I know about what the US has done, judge how well I think they've played it. So far I think it's been very impressive.
QuoteOn the Great Satan side of the debate you have the unproven (to my mind) assumption that the people (as opposed to the state) of Iran buy into it, and think that being on the same side as the US automatically delegitimizes a cause.
Given that a great deal of Swedes believe this, why would the people of a state with constant anti-American propaganda, which has suffered nearly thirty years of American backed tyranny and whose worst enemy was backed by the Americans, why would they not dislike the US? I mean the leadership of the revolt movement was certainly not made up of pro-Americans.
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2009, 12:39:20 PM
Well, I agree that it puts the onus on the Iranians, but since I don't think they give a shit about that, I don't see the point.
It's aimed at the rest of the world, not the Iranians.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2009, 11:50:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2009, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2009, 09:41:46 PM
So far I've been very impressed with Obama's handling of Iran.
Why?
The Russians have, interestingly, said that sanctions are now possibly 'inevitable' and, more importantly, they've put effectively an indefinite hold on shipping uranium for that nuclear plant they're building. I believe they were meant to deliver six months ago and they've now said there's a problem which will require them to delay that by at least nine months. Though to be fair they signed on to build that power plant in the early nineties so this might not be deliberate policy, it could well be a series of fuck-ups.
Sorta like how the PRC supported the latest UN sanctions against North Korea, then turned around sent Hu Jintao to Pyongyang, promising fresh new shipments of supplies and resources which are now being delivered?
Don't underestimate Russia and China's love of supporting regimes like Iran's.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 28, 2009, 12:10:34 AM
Sorta like how the PRC supported the latest UN sanctions against North Korea, then turned around sent Hu Jintao to Pyongyang, promising fresh new shipments of supplies and resources which are now being delivered?
Don't underestimate Russia and China's love of supporting regimes like Iran's.
I agree. Though I would note that it's not quite like North Korea-China. Not least because neither Russian nor China are an exasperated sugar daddy to the Iranians, Iran's as bit more independent. But also China suffers very real consequences the more North Korea fucks up.
As I say it's uncertain and the real answer is that critics and fans of Obama's Iran diplomacy both don't know. Now I think there's an inveterate bias on Languish against diplomacy. Many people are war gamers and I can't think of any situation to which the Languish consensus thought the answer was anything other than escalation.
All we can do is judge our impressions of American overtures so far. I think in terms of diplomacy it's been good. I think it's convincing to the rest of the world. As I say I don't think policy's changed significantly from the Bush administration but the mood music makes it seem like negotiations won't have failed through a lack of American involvement/care/belief. I think that's good, I would rather the onus be on the Iranians to come to the table and on them for the failure of negotiations than not.
And the dog barks. :rolleyes:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112369§ionid=351020101
QuoteIran says IAEA will face consequences of decision
Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:15:27 GMT
The UN nuclear watchdog will be the first to face the consequences of a newly-adopted resolution condemning Iran for its enrichment program, says a senior Iranian cleric.
On Friday, the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a German-sponsored resolution that calls on Iran to stop uranium enrichment and immediately freeze the construction of its newly revealed Fordo nuclear facility outside Tehran.
Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami responded to the move on Saturday, asserting that Iran will never be "forced", or for that matter, "bribed" to relinquish its legal nuclear rights.
"Rather than hurting Iran, the new resolution will impair the UN nuclear watchdog and Security Council," he said in a ceremony marking the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha (the Feast of the Sacrifice).
Khatami said Western countries are obligated "under law" to provide Tehran with the fuel it needs for the Tehran research reactor.
"If they fail to do so, Iran is well able to produce its own enriched uranium in order to keep the Tehran research reactor up and running," he said.
Some Western powers, spearheaded by the US, have been pressuring Iran to accept an inflexible nuclear draft deal which wants Iran's Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) to be shipped out of the country for further enrichment and return to Iran to be used in Tehran research reactor.
Iranian officials rejected the UN proposal, first floated by the administration of US President Barack Obama, saying there are no guarantees that the country would in fact receive the fuel it requires.
Tehran says it is ready to accept the nuclear swap if it takes place within its own borders.
The Tehran Research Reactor produces radioisotopes used in cancer treatment by over 200 hospitals in Iran.
"Over the past thirty years, Iranians have shown to the world that they will never give up their rights, especially those related to the country's nuclear program," said Khatami.
While the resolution received the immediate backing of Germany, Britain, Israel and the US, it was seen in Iran as a "hasty and undue" move with "far-reaching implications".
Iran's envoy to the UN nuclear watchdog, Ali-Asghar Soltaniyeh, warned on Friday that the decision will only introduce tension to the "spirit of cooperation."
"We expect the agency to play its essential role and facilitate technical cooperation ... this environment of the agency should be depoliticized for we have to make sure that the agency will only focus on technical matters," he said.
According to Soltaniyeh, if Western powers think that they will stop Iran's enrichment program by passing one resolution after another, "they are seriously wrong".
"In fact, over 200 hospitals whose patients are struggling with cancer are in need of radioisotopes. If they continue not to cooperate and supply the fuel, then the [Tehran] government has to look for other options," he said in an exclusive interview with Press TV.
Soltaniyeh reiterated that despite Iran's disappointment over the resolution, it is still "determined" to continue cooperation with the IAEA and expects the West to lean towards cooperation rather than confrontation.
SBB/DT
Why is the IAEA even bothering?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2009, 08:49:38 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2009, 06:24:23 PM
I agree that it is easy to speculate, but it is hard to support that particular speculation, even with inferential proof.
I can call your unstated assertion bad names too, but where does that get us?
The difference is that I provided facts that support mine.
QuoteOn the Great Satan side of the debate you have the unproven (to my mind) assumption that the people (as opposed to the state) of Iran buy into it, and think that being on the same side as the US automatically delegitimizes a cause.
I think it is reasonable to assume that people who are partisans and supporters for a particular leaders are likely to share many of the beliefs and positions of that leader. And I have no reason to believe that either Mousavi or Karroubi are lying when they express their views concerning the US, which are of long and established vintage.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 28, 2009, 12:07:36 AM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2009, 12:39:20 PM
Well, I agree that it puts the onus on the Iranians, but since I don't think they give a shit about that, I don't see the point.
It's aimed at the rest of the world, not the Iranians.
So it's just supposed to give everybody else a warm fuzzy feeling, not actually do anything to keep the Iranians from getting nukes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 27, 2009, 11:15:48 PM
The US was exactly right to not talk about supporting the protestors but rather to phrase it in terms of condemning violence against them. Making a statement of support, or whatever, would have made Americans feel warm and fuzzy and good. I think the insistence I heard on the need to show support for the protestors was a ridiculous desire for the political equivalent of auto-erotica.
And I think a clear expression of support for the principle of rule of law and open and fair elections is a bit more laudable than masturbation. As is expression of the disconnect between Iranian democracy in theory and Iranian democracy in practice.
QuoteI think you underestimate the power of nationalism and the unpopularity of foreign powers being perceived as meddling. It would have also played into the hands of the regime, especially given that their propaganda has said that these protests were largely concocted by the Americans (the protestors countered that Ahmedinejad's regime was basically a Russian puppet). State TV played footage on loop suggesting that Bush, McCain, Obama and Soros were behind it all.
And? Do we have reason to believe that Iranians bought into this?
QuoteIf you want to support movements like that then quietly funnel money their way. Condemn existing regimes. But I think it's mostly a mistake to get too close to protest/revolutionary movements because they'll look like puppets and will be easier to dismiss. That could have changed now that Obama's in office - I imagine Bush saying 'we support your struggle' was hemlock to most movements - but I don't think it's changed that much.
As I mentioned in a response to Fate in this thread, there is a long list of democratic movements which we have supported which seem to suffered not at all.
QuoteIs it? I thought it was mostly factual.
I don't know what'll happen. I think the Russians have other interests in the region and we don't know how they'll behave. My sense is that the EU-3 have had their hand strengthened in negotiations and are now far more willing to consider sanctions. But this is the problem with asking for an assessment of diplomacy. The real answer is we don't know. I've no idea what the Quai d'Orsay or the Kremlin are thinking and if it's had an effect.
So all I can do is, from what I know about what the US has done, judge how well I think they've played it. So far I think it's been very impressive.
And I think Iran hasn't budged an inch.
QuoteGiven that a great deal of Swedes believe this, why would the people of a state with constant anti-American propaganda, which has suffered nearly thirty years of American backed tyranny and whose worst enemy was backed by the Americans, why would they not dislike the US? I mean the leadership of the revolt movement was certainly not made up of pro-Americans.
:lol: I don't know what the belief system of the Swedes can tell us about the rest of the world.
I think you vastly overestimate the ability of state propaganda, particularly in a country with porous borders, an educated population, a large diaspora with family contacts and frequent visits, to control attitudes. Imagine you are an Iranian protestor and you see a news report that the CIA is directing the movement. Is your inclination to think you're being controlled by the CIA, or to think that the news is bunk?
As to 30 years of tyranny, I know the clerical establishment and the Communist party did not do well, whereas the urban middle class did very well under the Shah. As to the great majority of the population outside those circles, I haven't read anything directly on the issue but I would tend to believe they were tyrannized very lightly if at all.
As to the opposition leaderships attitudes towards the US, I don't have much to go on. Yes I know that whatshisname is an Old Guard member of the revolutionary government; I also know he has made an effort to access the international media, like his English language blog. And in all the interviews since the election I haven't seen anything negative about the US.
Quote from: dps on November 28, 2009, 01:06:01 PM
So it's just supposed to give everybody else a warm fuzzy feeling, not actually do anything to keep the Iranians from getting nukes.
No. If the US is being open and saying they'll talk as soon as the Iranians are read (as was the policy under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton) it makes the failure of dialogue the Iranians fault. That makes the rest of the world basically able to say that the US tried, at least, and more likely to support further action because the diplomatic one was exhausted and the Iranians weren't willing even to meet.
QuoteAnd I think a clear expression of support for the principle of rule of law and open and fair elections is a bit more laudable than masturbation. As is expression of the disconnect between Iranian democracy in theory and Iranian democracy in practice.
Yeah but it's more for your benefit than anyone else's.
QuoteAnd? Do we have reason to believe that Iranians bought into this?
I think they're in a generally anti-American area, with a generally anti-American government and have solid reasons from their history for resenting the Americans as much as they do the Brits and the Russians. Do I think they buy into state propaganda? Not entirely. But I do think US support would hugely damage support for the movement among people like Tehran cabby and other figures.
QuoteAnd I think Iran hasn't budged an inch.
I never said they have :mellow:
QuoteI think you vastly overestimate the ability of state propaganda, particularly in a country with porous borders, an educated population, a large diaspora with family contacts and frequent visits, to control attitudes.
Not just propaganda. Culture, religion, history, class, nationalism. I think there's a whole gamut of, for the most part, fair reasons why Iranians would be at least suspicious of America getting involved.
QuoteAs to the opposition leaderships attitudes towards the US, I don't have much to go on.
Actually you've got nothing to go on. The leadership is overwhelmingly run by old radicals from the 1980s Islamic left. Khameini and Rafsanjani were moderates compared to Mousavi.
Now generally the Islamic Left's become more liberal in certain attitudes so you can guess that such is likely from him. But I mean that's the only actual reason you could have for guessing that he's less anti-American and anti-Israeli than he was 20 years ago when he was last in office.
Who are you talking about with the blog and the interview? Mousavi had an all Persian website - not a blog - that's since been closed down and I'm almost certain he's not been in any interviews.
QuoteAs I mentioned in a response to Fate in this thread, there is a long list of democratic movements which we have supported which seem to suffered not at all.
I'd dispute apartheid given that Desmond Tutu called US policy on South Africa during the 80s 'evil, immoral and unchristian'. If Zimbabwe and Burma are the best to hope for then I'd hope you stay far away from the Iranians.
As to the colour ones I think I've a slightly different memory. My memory of them was that the US helped the opposition financially as did some wealthy Americans (for example George Soros's pro-democracy charity), but that during the revolutions the US and western line was that elections must be free and fair, the government must treat the protesters with respect. That's exactly the line I've said should be taken in Iran.
I think the Cedar revolution was different for obvious reasons.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 28, 2009, 11:00:53 PM
but that during the revolutions the US and western line was that elections must be free and fair, the government must treat the protesters with respect. That's exactly the line I've said should be taken in Iran.
:huh:
That's exactly the line *I* said we should have taken with Iran.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2009, 11:27:40 PM
:huh:
That's exactly the line *I* said we should have taken with Iran.
No you didn't. You wanted 'verbal support' of the election protesters which I think would be a mistake.
Keep focused on the government: condemn violence, say that all elections should be free and fair and that you're concerned with reports of irregularities. That's what the White House and the EU did, I think they were right, you think they were wrong.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 28, 2009, 11:33:34 PM
No you didn't. You wanted 'verbal support' of the election protesters which I think would be a mistake.
Keep focused on the government: condemn violence, say that all elections should be free and fair and that you're concerned with reports of irregularities. That's what the White House and the EU did, I think they were right, you think they were wrong.
Verbal support of protestors who were protesting what the believed to be fraudulent elections. What other purpose would verbal support serve? Let them know we think they're sexy and we really like Aizeris?
Maybe I missed the White House statement condemning violence and expressing concern over irregularities. Seriously, maybe I missed it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2009, 07:33:22 AM
Verbal support of protestors who were protesting what the believed to be fraudulent elections. What other purpose would verbal support serve? Let them know we think they're sexy and we really like Aizeris?
But I think verbal support of the protesters suggests some statement about how we stand with them, or their struggle is ours. The sort of thing that would make the US the Mick Jagger of revolutionary states. I think that sort of thing is largely for domestic consumption, makes Americans feel good about themselves while opening up the protesters to allegations of them being American puppets. I think it's patronising to a very proud people.
That's distinct from what I'd want which is condemnation of government violence, a general statement supporting the right to protest and the hope that the Iranian government will live up to the promise of their constrained democracy
QuoteMaybe I missed the White House statement condemning violence and expressing concern over irregularities. Seriously, maybe I missed it.
I think you did. The US to begin with expressed general sentiments:
QuoteQUESTION: Death toll in Iranian demonstrations reached to seven people confirmed. Is the United States still watching and monitoring as it unfolds for more strong – stronger stand on that?
MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, the President about an hour ago addressed the issue of the Iranian elections. I'll repeat what he said, that it's for the Iranian people to decide about their future. This is not about us. This is about Iran. Having said that, of course, I think it's very – or we think as a government that it's very important that the universal right of people to express themselves peacefully, that this right has to be respected. And of course, we condemn any acts of violence that led to the deaths of these demonstrators.
I think that what we're seeing is very troubling. And I reiterate our call to have the rights of the Iranian people to express themselves be respected and have their voices be heard.
QUESTION: What about the recount that is partial there? They agreed that they're going to go for a partial recount by a body that the head of the country Guardian Council actually supported the Ahmadinejad. So what is the United States' stand on that?
MR. KELLY: Well, what we stand for and what our allies have said as well in public is that we want – we want the will of the Iranian people to be respected, that they be responsible for their own future. And we call on the Iranian authorities to be as transparent as possible and to – and that we express our hope that whatever the results are that they express the genuine will and desires of the Iranian people.
Yes, in the back.
QUESTION: The United States is being a little bit less outspoken than some of the other Western countries on Iran. Is there a fear here that if you say what's really on your mind it will be used against American interests in Iran?
MR. KELLY: I think what we're really – and again, the President addressed this just a few minutes ago. Of course, we have seen Iran characterize us as the great Satan. We have seen Iran often publicly use us as kind of a lever. And I think what we're trying to avoid is we're trying to avoid any kind of appearance of this being about the U.S.. We don't want to appear as meddling in this whole process. Again, this is not about us. This is an important moment for the Iranian people, and this is about their future. It's not about us.
That was on June 16th, when the crackdown was just beginning. It was the first time that either the State Department commented on the elections or the journalists asked about it. That strikes me as mind-boggling, looking at the White House it seems incredible to me that there were more questions on the 17th, when the crackdown really started, about same sex benefits in the Federal government (3-4 by my count) than about Iran (1). I think it strikes the right note.
The statements got harsher as the government repressed the protests.
QuoteThe Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.
Interesting use of Blair's invention the 'international community' :mmm:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Looks like they want to make enriched uranium their 4th largest export. After oil, terrorism and Iranians actually worth a shit, of course.
I can't wait to continue seeing Euro "soft power" at work right up until the point the Israelis bomb them. The Iranians, that is. Not the Europeans. Unfortunately.
QuoteIran approves plans for 10 new uranium enrichment plants in defiance of UN censure
ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
3:53 PM EST, November 29, 2009
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran approved plans Sunday to build 10 industrial scale uranium enrichment facilities, a dramatic expansion of the program in defiance of U.N. demands it halt enrichment and a move that is likely to significantly heighten tensions with the West.
The decision comes only days after the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency censured Iran over its program and demanded it halt the construction of a newly revealed enrichment facility. The West has signaled it is running out of patience with Iran's continuing enrichment and its balking at a U.N. deal aimed at ensuring Tehran cannot build a nuclear weapon in the near-term future. The U.S. and its allies have hinted at new U.N. sanctions if Iran does not respond.
The White House said the move "would be yet another serious violation of Iran's clear obligations under multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and another example of Iran choosing to isolate itself."
"Time is running out for Iran to address the international community's growing concerns about its nuclear program," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband described Iran's move as a provocation.
"This epitomizes the fundamental problem that we face with Iran," he said. "We have stated over and again that we recognize Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program, but they must restore international confidence in their intentions. Instead of engaging with us Iran chooses to provoke and dissemble."
On Friday, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency issued a strong rebuke of Iran over enrichment, infuriating Tehran. Parliament speaker Ali Larijani threatened on Sunday to reduce cooperation with the IAEA.
"Should the West continue to pressure us, the legislature can reconsider the level of Iran's cooperation with the IAEA," Larijani told parliament in a speech carried live on state radio.
Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who is also Iran's nuclear chief, said Sunday's decision was "a firm message" in response to the IAEA. He told state TV that the agency's censure was a challenge aimed at "measuring the resistance of the Iranian nation."
Any new enrichment plants would take years to build and stock with centrifuges. But the ambitious plans were a bold show by Iran that it is willing to risk further sanctions and won't back down amid a deadlock in negotiation attempts.
Iran currently has one operating enrichment facility, at the central town of Natanz, which has churned out around 1,500 kilograms (3,300 pounds) of low-enriched uranium over the past years — enough to build a nuclear weapon if Iran enriches it to a higher level. Iran says it has no intention of doing so, insisting its nuclear program aims only to generate electricity.
The revelation of a second, previously unannounced facility, under construction for years at Fordo near the holy of Qom, raised accusations from the United States and its allies that Iran was trying expand enrichment in secret out of inspectors' sight. Iran denied the claim.
On Sunday, a Cabinet meeting headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to begin building five uranium enrichment plants at sites that have already been studied and propose five other locations for future construction within two months, the state news agency IRNA reported. All would be at the same scale as Natanz.
The new sites are to be built inside mountains to protect them from possible attacks, said Salehi, Iran's nuclear chief. They will also use a new generation of more efficient and more productive centrifuges that Iran has been working to construct, he and Ahmadinejad said.
In Vienna, spokeswoman Gillian Tudor said the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency would have no comment on Tehran's announcement.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for "a concentration of sanctions and pressure on the Iranian regime, which is vulnerable economically" to rein in its nuclear ambitions. Israel has not ruled out military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites if its program is not stopped.
The IAEA censure against Iran on Friday was seen as a show of international unity behind demands that Tehran rein in its nuclear program — though there does not yet appear to be consensus on imposing sanctions.
The IAEA resolution criticized Iran for secretly building the Fordo site and defying the U.N. Security Council call for a suspension of enrichment.
It noted that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei cannot confirm that Tehran's nuclear program is exclusively geared toward peaceful uses, and expressed "serious concern" that Iran's stonewalling of an agency probe means "the possibility of military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program" cannot be excluded.
The U.N. seeks to stop Iran's enrichment, because the process can be used to produce either fuel for a reactor or a warhead. In the process, uranium gas is spun in centrifuges to be purified — to a low degree for fuel, to a higher level for a bomb. Iran denies U.S. claims that it secretly aims to produce a nuclear weapon.
The United States and the top powers at the U.N. have been focused on winning Iran's acceptance of a deal under which it would ship abroad most of its low-enriched uranium stocks to be processed into fuel rods for a research reactor in Tehran. The move would leave Iran — at least temporarily — without enough uranium to produce a bomb.
But Iran has balked, presenting a counter-proposal with various changes. The West has demanded it accept the proposal as is.
In the wake of the IAEA rebuke, Iran has sought to signal that it can lash back if pushed. On Saturday, one hard-line lawmaker warned that parliament might withdraw the country from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and stop all U.N. inspections — a move that would sharply escalate the standoff with the West and cut off the U.N.'s only eyes on Iran's nuclear program.
But parliament took a lesser step on Sunday: 226 of the 290 lawmakers signed a letter urging the government to prepare a plan to reduce Tehran's cooperation with the IAEA in response to its resolution.
Iran touted the expansion of enrichment as necessary for its plans to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity through multiple nuclear power plants in the next 20 years.
Ahmadinejad said 500,000 centrifuges will be needed in the new plants to produce between 250 to 300 tons of fuel annually, IRNA reported. About 8,600 centrifuges have been set up in Natanz, but only about 4,000 are actively enriching uranium, according to the IAEA. The facility will eventually house 54,000 centrifuges. The Fordo site is smaller, built for nearly 3,000 centrifuges.