Nuke deal with Iran coming soon?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Cross your fingers? I think this could be a good thing (unless you supported bombing them, which makes this a bummer for you).

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap2796600.html

Associated Press

AP: U.S. to Give Iran Nuclear Technology
By GEORGE JAHN , 06.06.2006, 11:01 AM

A package of incentives presented Tuesday to Iran includes a provision for the United States to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium - a major concession by Washington, diplomats said.

The offer was part of a series of rewards offered to Tehran by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, according to the diplomats, who were familiar with the proposals and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were disclosing confidential details of the offer.

The package was agreed on last week by the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia - the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, in a bid to resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran.



Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

[camacazio]

It's difficult because you don't want to reward countries for trying to build bombs by giving incentives not to, but at the same time the alternative--overstocking your own--is tried and true horrifying.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

We already reward other nations who build bombs they're not supposed to have, so to start with Iran would be kind of pointless. We also sell plenty of weapons worldwide to some shitty regimes.

In a way, Iran is right. We are in no position to tell anybody who should and shouldn't have nukes. We have made it pretty obvious through our own foreign policy that nations with the nukes fall under less scrutiny than those who actually have them. We set that standard, not them. It makes absolute sense for them to pursue the bomb.

That being said, the threat of a nuclear armed Iran should be taken seriously. They support terrorism, and pose a threat to our allies. However, I think Iran could be a fantastic partner in the Middle East, despite the fact that they elected a douche bag. I think good relations with free nations is what will aid Iran rather than the opposite.

[Abcdxxxx]

I think I'm missing the strategy here, since there's a big difference between saying "we want the bomb" and "we want the bomb so we can blow up the world". I do think it's more then likely that Iran will become a stabilizing force in the region, but their nuclear program isn't likely to encourage that transformation. My biggest concern is that Iran has taken a hardline stance, while making moderate moves behind closed doors. The US has responded with a fairly hardline response until now, so by making this public, it will likely be percieved as weak American caving in to their demands

[Preechr]

This is just us calling Iran's bluff.

There's no way they are pursuing nuclear energy, though half the time that's what they are saying they're trying to do (inbetween the times they say they want nukes with which to incinerate Isreal.) This offer takes that off the table. If you want electricity, we will give you an extension cord...

Pakistan also supports terrorism, and they have nukes. Iran has actually been far more accomodating and helpful to the West than has Pakistan, even factoring in for the hostage crisis thingy. With the war, Iran just can't be allowed to move on like this.

My money's on Israel and a surgical strike. That's gonna be cool to see, but prolly really bad.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I saw some war game thingy that had an Israeli solo strike looking pretty messy and causing complications.

How has Iran been more helpful than Pakistan...lately?

[Abcdxxxx]

You know what would be almost as bad for Israel as a nuclear Iran? The US & co. bombing the shit out of Iran and watching the oil pipelines end up like Iraq's. I could see Israel pre-empting that strike in order to preserve their oil connection, but the chances of Israel getting tipped off to a strike with any time to act, is pretty fucking slim. I would be shocked if Olmert ordered that kind of strike, but I do think he's easily influenced, and acts to appease whoever screams loudest.

[Preechr]

I have a working theory that this standoff will drag along slowly until pipelines from Israel to Kurdistan are online. There's a reason we aren't taking a harder stance.

And Kev, I'm not talking about just "lately." Iran is extremely influential among those governments and sects in that region which we sometimes have needed to sway one way or another, and just like Israel, they have been willing to do some dirty work for us in the past. Pakistan was useful for getting arms into Afghanistan and served as a convenient listening post during the Cold War, but we're talking about the difference between letting us use your location and using your influence for us.

Also, you mentioned our arms deals before.... If some nasty group of thugs somewhere is in the market for weaponry, don't you think that whomever winds up selling them their guns will hold some influence over them, or at least know what's going on with them to some degree? Do you see the value in that for us being their "dealer?" As rotten as it can look, I think it's necessary for us to be the "world's largest arms dealer." If I am right, and the WOT ihas the potential to end war altogether, then we are playing both sides toward the middle.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You guys are the reason people carry "No blood for oil" signs at protests.

preech, I think you're right about Iran's influence, and I think their potential even outweighs what they currently do.

However, Pakistan has given us pretty good access, and I think has been pretty valuable due to their location and access. Yay military dictators!

As for the arms selling stuff-- I guess you may be right about that, however us selling info like that to Iraq didn't stop Iraq from turning around and invading an ally nation.

I guess my point was more that it puts us in a strange position to try and dictate who should and shouldn't have destructive weapons (not to be confused with WMDs).