Very interesting, Senator Obama

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Because then we might have been able to end that totalitarian regime decades earlier and saved tens of trillions of dollars wasted on Cold War defense spending.

Agreed about the defense spending, but how would a bomb-less USSR have ended decades earlier?

[Drake Tungsten]

US nukes Moscow

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Just about everyone, except a few of the posters here, realize that a nuclear Iran is about the world's biggest nightmare right now.

That'll change the moment Musharraff (sp) is overthrown by Islamic radicals and a nuclear-armed Pakistan goes fundamentalist.

I so hope that *never* happens, although the price of that probably means we'll be bleeding troops and material along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border into the foreseeable future, thanks to that "peace" deal Musharraff (sp) made with the Taliban-esque population in that area (Waziristan, I think? Or is it the North-West Frontier Province?)

Gatekeeper

[Berzerker]

Just about everyone, except a few of the posters here, realize that a nuclear Iran is about the world's biggest nightmare right now.

The same people who told me about WMD are telling me Iran is evil and should be attacked, they didn't fool me then and they wont fool me now

[Ramo]

Now lets get back to the point raised by Rossner in the article Arrian linked to. Is Obama's position that we should talk to them even if they continue enrichment?

I haven't read anything that explicitly says anything about the scenario besides the last quote in the article (the one I hope he has changed his mind on)...

North Korea was part of a multilateral diplo process, which is the approach theyve taken with Nkor for some time.

Yes, and in the past the deal could very well have been scuttled. See the reaction by hardliners like Bolton. Supposedly, Powell didn't push hard on the Iran offer to give him room to maneuver wrt NK. Cheney can only take so much diplomacy before shooting people in the face...

They also used diplomacy with Libya.

They supported the EU3 talks with Iran,

You realize that I was being somewhat facetious when I wrote that Bush doesn't believe in diplomacy, right?

and Khalilzad talked with Iran wrt Iraq.

Briefly. The talks were pretty quickly suspended...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Agreed about the defense spending, but how would a bomb-less USSR have ended decades earlier?

Even leaving out the possibility that we force their surrender, the conventional force they'd have to maintain as a deterrent to our nukes could have collapsed their economy sooner.

[Ramo]

what rattling of swords?

Supporting the MEK, Kurdish rebels, carrying out covert ops within Iran, going on and on about threats to bomb their nuclear facilities, etc.

I know you don't care too much for Sy Hersh, but check out his latest article. It's fascinating. It's about the redirection of support to sometimes unsavory Sunni groups to fight the Shia crescent...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo



Briefly. The talks were pretty quickly suspended...

automatically blaming the US when talks dont go anywhere is a pretty good reinforcement to the Bolton position that talking IS dangerous, cause if the other side refuses compromise, the US will be blamed.


BTW Ignatius has an interesting article in the Post on how important financial sanctions were to getting the deal on Nkor.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

I do wonder if its the same as his current position.

Substantively, I think it is. He has been saying that we should bunker down on diplomacy but in the end, all options are on the table. Which is pretty different from the Admin's policy, which (at least until recently) doesn't believe in, you know, diplomacy...

Look who's talking: U.S., Iran to meet

February 28, 2007
BY ROBERT BURNS
WASHINGTON -- In a diplomatic turnabout, the Bush administration will join an Iraq-sponsored ''neighbors meeting'' with Iran and Syria, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday.

It marked a change of approach by the United States, which has resisted calls by members of Congress and by a bipartisan Iraq review group to include Iran and Syria in talks designed to stabilize Iraq.

The administration said its decision to take part in the Iraq conference did not represent a change of heart, although the White House has accused both Iran and Syria of deadly meddling in the war. ''We've always been inclined to participate in an Iraqi-led conference,'' White House counselor Dan Bartlett said.

The administration in recent weeks has increased its criticism of Iran's role in Iraq, charging it with supplying technologies for the most lethal form of roadside bombs. The administration has accused Syria of harboring anti-Iraqi government forces and allowing weapons to cross its border.

Rice's announcement was welcomed by Democrats and Republicans alike.

''Today's announcement is a first step, but it is not enough on its own,'' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. ''Our national security requires a robust diplomatic effort in the Middle East, and the Bush administration cannot again settle for mere half measures.''

A Rice spokesman said the meeting would not include formal negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, but he did not rule out informal discussions.

AP

I still wonder what is the carrot and what is the stick?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


Supporting the MEK, Kurdish rebels, carrying out covert ops within Iran, going on and on about threats to bomb their nuclear facilities, etc.

Its not at all clear what covert ops are going on in Iran. Interesting that when pro-khomeinist factions fight in Iraq, thats a phenomenon with deep roots in Iraqi society, even when actuall Al Quds guys are captured. Similarly in Lebanon. But when theres violence among ethnic minorities in Iran thats must be the CIA. Anyway, saber rattling in English implies something public.

As for threats to bomb, I havent seen any by the admin. Just that its not off the table. Which, as Obama rightly says, it cant be.

In Israel of course theres more discussion of such things - given that they see themselves as likely targets of an Iranian nuke, given the rhetoric that Ahmadinajad aims at them (but thats NOT saberrattling) they could hardly not review all their options.

[Ramo]

Yep, just saw that. Like I was saying the midterms seem to have shaken them up.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yep, just saw that. Like I was saying the midterms seem to have shaken them up.

Mebbe.


Or maybe with the surge going relatively well, they see an opportunity to bargain from strength?

Or maybe not do the surge, but to greater confidence in the ability of financial sanctions to give them leverage (see Ignatius column in todays WaPo)


Or maybe the insurgency is going well enough, they want to buy time domestically for it to continue.

Or maybe in the attempt to get a new sanctions res through the UNSC, theyve hit a road block, and are doing this to assuage the Russians.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Elok
Everyone talks about Iran like it's completely irrational, but they've done a pretty good job of manipulating events to their advantage lately. It would be better if they didn't have nuclear weapons, of course, but it's hardly a doomsday scenario. North Korea's a lot scarier.

Whilst there may well be rational elements in Iran, there are some wildly dangerous ones too - as a couple of threads about the suicide cults there have discussed in recent months.

I'm not the sort to advocate attacking anyone in a hurry, but if I lived in Israel I would be worried about what some influential Iranians consider a realistic sacrifice.

[Ramo]

Its not at all clear what covert ops are going on in Iran. Interesting that when pro-khomeinist factions fight in Iraq, thats a phenomenon with deep roots in Iraqi society, even when actuall Al Quds guys are captured.

Huh? I've always said that Iran has strong ties with SCIRI, and weaker ties with the Mahdi Army.

Similarly in Lebanon.

When did I say otherwise?

But when theres violence among ethnic minorities in Iran thats must be the CIA.

No. But sources within the gov't that say as much to reporters probably might be some indication as to the origin of the violence.

[q]As for threats to bomb, I havent seen any by the admin. Just that its not off the table. Which, as Obama rightly says, it cant be.

In Israel of course theres more discussion of such things - given that they see themselves as likely targets of an Iranian nuke, given the rhetoric that Ahmadinajad aims at them (but thats NOT saberrattling) they could hardly not review all their options.


[/quote]

I think I've seen much more than what Obama has said. Like the whole flap over bunker-busting nukes. Hersh's new article has a good example: Bush has created the capability to bomb Iran's sites within 24 hours of his order...

[Ramo]

Or maybe with the surge going relatively well, they see an opportunity to bargain from strength?

We're in a stronger position now than the Spring of '03?