Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 04/21/2006 View Thu 04/20/2006 View Wed 04/19/2006 View Tue 04/18/2006 View Mon 04/17/2006 View Sun 04/16/2006 View Sat 04/15/2006
1
2006-04-21 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Rice Eyes ‘Coalition of the Willing’ Against Tehran
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2006-04-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 She can easily jot this crowd down on a small sticky note.
Posted by Besoeker 2006-04-21 09:03||   2006-04-21 09:03|| Front Page Top

#2 We are repeating the WMD error of GWII. We should not be focusing on the Iranian bomb, but on Iranian compliance with the NNPT. Every other country abides by it why shouldn't Iran? If Iran is not sanctioned for abrogating it why shouldn't everyone else? These are the points we should be hammering.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-21 09:23||   2006-04-21 09:23|| Front Page Top

#3 problem with that NS, is that nobodys gonna buy that the penalty for cheating on the NNPT is war, or even heavy sanctions. If we focus on past cheating alone, then the best we get are slaps on the wrist - a ban on other countries supplying nuke tech to Iran (which they can do without) and some really limited sanctions (freezing bank accounts of INDIVIDUALs - theyll shrug that off) What we want to do is tie the past cheating to the current enrichment (which they are otherwise allowed under NNPT) The cheating, PLUS the enrichment, shows theyre pursuing a bomb, which gets peoples attention. And if they want us to stop the train towards SERIOUS measures, they must stop enrichment (they can of course hope the Russians will stop serious measures, though its not clear they are willing to take the chance)
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-04-21 09:31||   2006-04-21 09:31|| Front Page Top

#4 LH, you keep taking the UN process seriously and it's not. It's all PR for domestic US consumption. We aren't going to get anything more than wrist slaps from the UN as long as Russia and China have vetos and Iran is on the Commission for Disarmament. Russia gains when America loses. Even if Iran gets nukes. Russia would love to live in a world with lots of nuclear players. They thrive in that kind of environment.

Every one knows Iran is building a bomb. That is not an issue for debate. What we should be stressing is that if Iran can violate the NNPT with impunity the lesson for Saudi, Egypt, Venezuela, Brazil, Indonesia, et al is that they should to. Is that the world we want to see evolve? That is the question we should have on the plate, not let's nuke Iran before Iran nukes us.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-21 09:41||   2006-04-21 09:41|| Front Page Top

#5 NS

YOU are assuming that either the UN process is to get an actual resolution, OR its PR for the US. Its also PR for the Euros, and any other wouldbe members of the coalition of the willing. If Russia vetoes (and im still not 100% sure they will - and Im not sure they want lots of nuclear powers, either) we will have gone a long way to getting others on board.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-04-21 09:48||   2006-04-21 09:48|| Front Page Top

#6 ive been mistrustful of Putin when others here still thought better of him. But I dont think Russia is playing a zpure zero sum game against us.
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-04-21 09:49||   2006-04-21 09:49|| Front Page Top

#7 YOU are assuming that either the UN process is to get an actual resolution, OR its PR for the US.

No, I'm assuming the resolutions are irrelevant in and of themselves and the UN is all theater with its resolutions relevant only to the extent they affect PR.

I think we get more on board domestically and internationally by stressing the treaty adherence and proliferation angle than the MM's are going to nuke us all angle.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-21 09:53||   2006-04-21 09:53|| Front Page Top

#8 "stressing the treaty adherence and proliferation angle than the MM's are going to nuke us all angle"

well yeah, theres the proliferation angle, but thats not the same as the treaty adherence angle. Remember the Iranians cheated by building secret facilities to do stuff, like make U hexaflouride, and enrichment, that theyre ALLOWED to do under the NNPT. So its not ipso facto that theyre trying to prolif (though its a pretty reasonable deduction) And the punishments WITHIN the NNPT are relatively weak - they only involve denial of technical cooperation on nuclear technology. The NNPT really IS a flawed, weak treaty (it had to be, or the non-nuke powers wouldnt have signed). What we're trying to get the world (esp the Euros) on board for are, at a minimum, sanctions that go BEYOND what are envisioned by the NNPT - and the only way to get them aboard, I think, is to show that this really is VERY serious. Like life and death serious.
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-04-21 09:59||   2006-04-21 09:59|| Front Page Top

#9 LH: If the Russians weren't pursuing such an option I doubt the Iranians would be as far along as they are towards having a bomb right now.
Posted by Phil 2006-04-21 10:00||   2006-04-21 10:00|| Front Page Top

#10 What we're trying to get the world (esp the Euros) on board for are, at a minimum, sanctions that go BEYOND what are envisioned by the NNPT

No, that would be a nice to have. But what we should be doing is preparing the battlefield (very broadly defined) to whack the Iranian nuke progam back at least 5 years and destabilize the MM regime. If we can do it without violence great. But the only way we can do it without violence is to make sure the Iranians fear the violent alternative. Given the US and Iranian performances vis a vis eachother over the last 25 years, that's going to take a very violent alternative.

The EU3 can play the nice cop. We need to make it clear why we are going to be the bad cop. And 1) treaty adherence and 2) proliferation concerns are a better basis for that case than the MM are going to nuke us.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-21 10:08||   2006-04-21 10:08|| Front Page Top

#11 Is Condi using the Rumfield "Tiger Strike" move there?
Posted by flash91 2006-04-21 10:58||   2006-04-21 10:58|| Front Page Top

#12 Don't forget the ChiComs complicity (per Bill Gertz):

"Classified U.S. intelligence reports dating from the early 1990s reveal that Beijing has been covertly backing Iranian nuclear efforts, as it did in Pakistan, with training and equipment.

One October 1991 report disclosed that the state-run China Nuclear Energy Industry Corp. was working with Iran's government to supply nuclear technology for a reactor facility being planned in western Iran.

A top-secret U.S. intelligence report from April 1996 revealed that a Chinese delegation of technicians traveled to Iran to take part in building a uranium enrichment facility at Isfahan. The report said: "The plant will produce uranium products that Iran can use to make fissile material for nuclear weapons." The technicians were the advance team who were planning construction of several nuclear-related plants. A month earlier, in March 1996, a group of Iranian nuclear technicians traveled to China to study technical documents for the nuclear construction.

Then in January 1999, the Pentagon's Joint Staff produced a classified intelligence report that revealed new details of how China was supplying Iran with materials and equipment for Tehran's nuclear and missile programs. The same month, the CIA revealed that China had concluded a deal to sell Iran special materials used in making nuclear fuel rods. In March 1999, a group of Iranian technicians were sent to Beijing University for training in missile guidance and development. That year, China also supplied the Iranians with advanced C-801 anti-ship cruise missiles.

By early December 1999, the National Security Agency reported that technicians from China and Pakistan were working at the Iranian underground nuclear laboratory at Isfahan. The site had not been declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency until 2003.

China was not the only nuclear supplier. Russia and North Korea also were helping the Iranian nuclear and missile programs."
Posted by Captain America 2006-04-21 12:06||   2006-04-21 12:06|| Front Page Top

#13 im not saying the russians havent sold stuff to the Iranians. But thats explained by A. Money and B. Cultivating the Iran regime in particular as easily as its explained by a "lets have nuke regimes everywhere" strategy. While the Russians may not long for stability as much as the euros and the Chinese, I dont see them as quite the bull in the china shop.

NS - i think we can agree to disagree, on the exact emphasis to each.
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-04-21 12:22||   2006-04-21 12:22|| Front Page Top

#14 NS is right about the WMD error. The Bush administration will get signifcant resistance to this arguement, and they know it. HE can live down the first one, but if he makes the same mistake twice it will be part of his legacy. However, LH is dead-on about the NNPT angle. It seems like a very weak excuse for military action. Political opponents, media, and the average American citizen will see this as the flimsy excuse that it is.
So what's the answer guys? How do we come together on this?
My thoughts are tell me that both approaches are correct, therefore we should take both. Make it clear that breaking the NNPT has only one purpose, and that purpose is a bomb.
As for the U.N. dance, lets dance it, but start making a stink now about the futility of the U.N. Irans current position is a clear indicator of what a joke the U.N. really is, so lets bring it to everyones attention along with the specific nations that approve of this kind of absurdity at the U.N. This will get support from the American people for ignoring the U.N. if we need to.
Then, let the bombs fall where they may.
Posted by Mike N. 2006-04-21 14:50||   2006-04-21 14:50|| Front Page Top

#15 Man! I've been reading too many of Josephs' rants.
Posted by Mike N. 2006-04-21 14:52||   2006-04-21 14:52|| Front Page Top

#16 "If we can do it without violence great. But the only way we can do it without violence is to make sure the Iranians fear the violent alternative"

Violence doesnt have to mean US military action. If there are economic sanctions, and the mullahs try to hold on, and there economy starts to go down the tubes,there may well be violence on the streets of Teheran, involving masses of unemployed Iranians. There are hints the mullahs fear that MORE than American bombs, which might help them to KEEP power.
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-04-21 15:01||   2006-04-21 15:01|| Front Page Top

#17 LiberalHawk.
If Mid-East oil or some large portion of it is off the market for any length of time then: Putin and Russia are winners in the massive high priced oil game

They win!

Factor that.
Posted by 3dc 2006-04-21 15:44||   2006-04-21 15:44|| Front Page Top

23:45 Seafarious
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:36 Frank G
23:34 Frank G
23:33 Seafarious
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:25 Frank G
23:13 Redneck Jim
23:09 Frank G
23:08 Alaska Paul
23:07 BA
22:55 BA
22:54 ed
22:52 BA
22:49 ed
22:47 ed
22:47 BA
22:41  Barbara Skolaut
22:40  Barbara Skolaut
22:39 BA
22:36 RD
22:30 Adriane
22:29 Frank G
22:25 RD









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com