Iran's president rejects nuclear deal

"The six powers, the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, along with Germany, agreed on a "set of far-reaching proposals" on Thursday."

So now that Iran is going to reject the U.N. proposal and continue with uranium enrichment what should be the next step from the U.N. or the U.S.?

Briana Dawson

I can tell you what I think will happen.


A year before elections, we'll go to war against Iran. It will be dogmatized as the silent enemy that we've had for decades, that has been a problem since the Regan administration, and probably be blamed somehow for supplying insurgents in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It'll be bloody and Iran may deploy a nuke. If they don't, our government will say they tried but we intercepted it. Either way, a hunk of metal (be it a cell phone sattellite or a crumbled nuke) will fall into the ocean, if not destroyed in a silo that was really a part of an irrigation duct.

The Republican party will then try to vault the new threat (a real one, finally) to the USA. One they created, but will claim came after us by not halting their nuke program. Dems will counter with charges of corruption and illegal wars, but since nukes get a UN-Sanctioned military response, the corruption will be old news. The focus will be on illegal immigration and how to handle Iran. The Dems will do decently in that forum after establishing that the points where they shine are being mothballed by the media in favor of the new Iranian War. The Reps, however, will be able to give a decisive plan that is long-term. Long-term will be acceptable at this point, as Iran has ZOMGN00XORZ, and proper spin means Joe Moron will buy the crap. With UN sanction, the new war goes uncriticized as it is legal, and a bloody conflict will resolve with an Iranian loss in teh second term of the new Republican President. Reps hold the government, Dems get the shine.

Alarmist, yes. Plausible, easily.

Carter Administration
Only a Republican can handle Iran. Reagan freed the hostages within minutes of being inaugerated and later sold them weapons in secret deals. Oh, wait, I mean, I don't recall if he sold arms to Iran.

It wasn't really a deal... It's like asking an enemy to surrender before negotiating terms of surrender. It's some of the stupidest diplomacy I have ever seen. On the other hand it is also a very obvious attempt to NOT attempt diplomacy before falling back onto the military options.

First rule of US warfare: Make absolutely positively sure the enemy can't shoot back. That's why they had the UN arms inspectors first check for WMDs in Iraq, and its why its asking Iran to promise not to try to develop any weapons, and its why its support for Afghanistan during active hostilities mostly consisted of advisors and high altitude bombing runs, and its why the last major combat before the present troubles was against teh almighty Panamanian armed farces.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. Any sane general stacks the odds ruthlessly in their favour before engaging. It's just that when you do this kind of activity during the diplomacy stage of the game, it makes it look like you aren't taking the diplomacy very seriously. Saying "Roll over and play dead, or we'll attack," just isn't very diplomatic.

Uhm, in the Kosovo conflict we dropped more ordinance than in WWII, Vietnam and the 1st gulf war combined. Thats kinda major.

Briana Dawson

The details of the U.N. offer have not been made public and yet you know "it wasn't really a deal"?

Briana Dawson

If we don't bomb their nuclear facilities, Israel will.

I didn't count that one because it was officially considered a UN action, not a US one. But sicne you want to count it, note that it fits the pattern perfectly of making sure the enemy absolutely positively can't shoot back.

LOL!!!

It was a NATO action.

Whats wrong with bombing the enemy until they can't shoot back? Would you rather our soldiers, sailors\coastguard, airmen, marines or guardsmen go into a conflict against a fully mobilized enemy force that hasn't been softened by bombing? Why do you hate our armed forces?

Briana Dawson

Stop putting words in my mouth. For your convenience, I have copied my second paragraph which you apparently never bothered to to read.



To paraphrase, there is NOTHING wrong with stacking the odds ridiculously in your favour once you are at war. My issue is that they are openly doing this while still claiming to be at the diplomatic stage of the great game. At the diplomatic stage of the game, the present US actions are highly inappropriate.

We won't invade Iran. That's just plain silly. More likely, we'll use sanctions against the Iranians and try to make them painful -- and of course, the French and Russians will see a money-making opportunity to stab the U.N. in the back like they did in Iraq.

The fact is, however, that Iran has been a much greater threat in her support of terrorism than any other nation short of Taliban-run Afghanistan. "Action" does not necessarily require bombs and people dying, but implied in any dealings of the future is the possibility that Israel could just decide to pre-empt the threat like they did at Osirac.

Our worst fears may be on the verge of happening if things go badly -- Iran could see a nuclear attack on Israel as a bid for Arab leadership, and Israel will not sit still for that to happen, no matter who is pleading with them not to react. That could get very nasty, and Iraq will ultimately have nothing to do with anything.

What exactly has the US done that is 'highly inappropriate'?

Briana Dawson

The US government said it would only negotiate if Iran first shows proof that it has no uranium enrichment programme, civilian or otherwise. The right for non-nuclear weapon states to enrich uranium for civilian purposes is enshrined in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a treaty which both states concerned are party to. This is why I consider teh present US position to be highly inappropriate.

Let's be realist. You think Iran will only enrich uranium for civilian use? They should be trusted and their sovereignty respected?

Briana Dawson

I trust them about as much as I trust the US government. But if all foreign policy was done of the basis of whether or not you like the other guy's face, there'd be a lot more wars.

I'm not at all convinced this isn't part of an imperialistic oil grab amid common stories of peak oil. But I'm willing to give the US govt the benefit of the doubt when you'll give Iran the same deal.

hey i am french so cool down please

The Iranians activelly supply terrorist orgs with money and weapons. If they get nukes, you think they won't pass a couple of them on?

Now that's not fair. the USA did exactly the same with numerous terrorist groups throughout South America, but they never gave out nukes. Why the double standard in making assuptions about what a nation will do with nukes?

Why do you hate your country?

Briana Dawson

I love my country. It's small, the economy is crap, we hardly make a dent on the world stage, but I love it anyway.

Did you just say that our government wouldn't go to war with Iran because it's a bad idea? Erm.....are you entirely sure that it being a good idea is a qualifier?

No. I'm saying it's an entirely different equation than Iraq was. For one thing, we didn't invade Iraq until after 12 years of sanctions and 17 U.N. resolutions which Iraq ignored or violated.

Iran is also much larger (68 million vs. Iraq's 24 million pop.) and is not the airtight police state that Iraq was. There is a large column of internal opposition to the mullahs in Iran which would be undercut and assimilated by any foreign invasion.

Taking out the Iranian facilities with bombing attacks is a possible route, though it's not nearly as certain as physically occupying a site with ground forces. But that's not the same as invading.


Yes, uranium enrichment is legal under the NPT. However, the enrichment level required for reactor operation is around 3.5%. Weapons-grade enrichment requires around a 90% level. So there is a very marked difference between enrichment for peaceful purposes and enrichment for military purposes.

The NPT you cite also requires non-nuclear signatories (like Iran) to cooperate with international organizations in exchange of information and supervision of compliance. That's the part that Iran has refused to do, thus placing them in violation of the NPT and raising fears that their enrichment will exceed that required for peaceful energy uses.

If they're not up to no-good, why hide it?