| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Gates: Diplomacy With Iran Is 'Working' |
| 2007-04-19 |
| Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that diplomatic efforts to resolve the standoff with Iran over its disputed nuclear program are "working" and should be given a chance to succeed. Any evidence that it's working? Please? Both the U.S. and Israel accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons -- a charge Iran denies. Gates said the international community "is united in telling Iran what it needs to do with respect to its nuclear program." "United"??? ..."We agreed it was important to deal with the Iranian nuclear problem through diplomacy, which appears to be working," Gates said at a news conference with his Israeli counterpart, Amir Peretz. "These things don't work overnight, but it seems to me clearly the preferable course to keep our focus on the diplomatic initiatives, and particularly because of the united front of the international community at this point," he added. |
| Posted by:Dave D. |
| #6 Flatten them I hope, Redneck Jim. That kind of nonsense can't be allowed, even if the recipient is a country we're not terribly fond of at the moment. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-04-19 23:07 |
| #5 Just what would we do if Iran nuked Russia? Cheer? |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-04-19 19:15 |
| #4 Hopefully this is diversionary nonsense, and some moonless night in the next few months Plan B will commence in the skies over Iran. But I just don't think the Bushies are that crafty. I hope I'm wrong. |
| Posted by: Kirk 2007-04-19 14:51 |
| #3 SPACEWAR/RIAN > Iran says will work on advanced weapons iff UN sanctions + USA warns RUSSIA Iran's missles target it first due to Iranian missles' present and projected capabilities, also advises Russians not to feel threatened by US BMD bases in Eastern Europe + to work together on protecting Europe. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-04-19 05:42 |
| #2 Say Rob, how is the warhead refresh program doing? Speeding things up a bit, you know, just in case? |
| Posted by: ed 2007-04-19 01:22 |
| #1 Very alarming, yet unsurprising. The idea is not to "resolve" a "standoff" - it's to get 100% of our essential goals, period. Same as with North Korea. There's zero value to us in anything but a 100% surrender by the other side, as Pyongyang has attempted to explain to us numerous times by their actions since the 90s. This is NOT haggling over a price, or posturing to give yourself leverage in that haggling process. It's a binary, black/white situation: either they get the bomb or they don't. No diplomatic "compromises" have any meaning here. Is it 1997, or 2007? Who are those people in power? |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-04-19 01:03 |