The discussion revolves around the resignation of Admiral William Fallon, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, and its implications for U.S. policy towards Iran. Participants explore the reasons behind his resignation, the nature of his disagreements with the Bush administration regarding military action in Iran, and the broader context of U.S. military strategy in the region.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of Fallon's resignation or the likelihood of military action against Iran. Multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of Fallon's disagreements with the administration and the broader context of U.S. military strategy.
Limitations include the reliance on interpretations of Fallon's statements and the absence of definitive evidence regarding the motivations behind his resignation. The discussion also reflects varying perspectives on the U.S. military's capacity and strategic priorities in the Middle East.
turbo-1 said:Enemies of Iran make allegations, and then the IAEA demands that Iran PROVE that their enrichment programs are for peaceful purposes. This cannot be done. You cannot prove a negative.
turbo-1 said:Our own NIE claims that Iran stopped their enrichment program in 2003.
turbo-1 said:According to the IAEA, they are in compliance and have been for years. ...
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-83.pdfIran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its [NPT] Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, its processing and its use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored
Iran has asked France to “create a consortium to produce enriched uranium” in a bid to break the deadlock over Tehran’s nuclear programme.
The deputy director of Iran’s atomic energy agency Mohammed Saedi told the France Info radio station that a deal was imminent with two French companies, Areva and Eurodif, to enrich uranium in Iran.
The companies would be given “tangible” control of Iran’s nuclear activities, Saedi told the radio station – which would also allow UN nuclear inspectors to restart their investigations.
Tehran has refused to give into US-led calls for an end to its nuclear programme – which Washington believes is about creating weapons, not energy – and still faces the threat of UN sanctions.
turbo-1 said:It is necessary to make the distinction, because true conservatives like myself would never act like these radical warmongers, starting wars at will and wasting US blood and treasure to profit their handlers.
turbo-1 said:But it did happen.
turbo-1 said:The fact that Iran offered to do this and was actively negotiating with one of our European partners to put the deal together is never mentioned in the US press.
Thomas Pickering said:We propose that Iran's efforts to produce enriched uranium and other related nuclear activities be conducted on a multilateral basis, that is to say jointly managed and operated on Iranian soil by a consortium including Iran and other governments. This proposal provides a realistic, workable solution to the US-Iranian nuclear standoff. Turning Iran's sensitive nuclear activities into a multinational program will reduce the risk of proliferation and create the basis for a broader discussion not only of our disagreements but of our common interests as well.
If you don't know who Tom Pickering is, let me assure you that he is no pinko appeaser. Nor is he visiting assistant lecturer in thumb-sucking at St. Martha's on the Swamp. Pickering was the Reagan Administration's Ambassador to El Salvador during the U.S.-sponsored "air war" in 1984-5. He was Reagan's Ambassador to Israel when Israel was crushing the first Intifada with "force, might, beatings." Now he's co-chair of the International Crisis Group, and Chairman of the American Academy of Diplomacy. You can't, if you have a shred of respect for experience or expertise in international relations, accuse Tom Pickering of being naïve.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR2006031200275.htmlTEHRAN, March 12 -- Iran rejected an offer from Russia to enrich uranium on its behalf Sunday, closing the door on what had been the most promising diplomatic resolution to international concerns over its nuclear program...
turbo-1 said:Iran accepts the proposal of former US embassador Thomas Pickering to allow an internationally-owned consortium to run their enrichment program.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/iran-accepted-pickerings_b_104932.html
I didn't call it a conspiracy, you did. The US press barely covers anything positive about diplomatic initiatives on the part of the Iranians. You can speculate on the source of the bias - I won't go there. What is clear is that even when the Iranians agree to proposals put forth by conservative US figures, they are ignored and the news is buried, and the drum-beat for war goes on.seycyrus said:Ok, this happened 3 days ago. I still don't think it qualifies as a conspiracy. Everyone was waiting for Clinton to burst into tears as she worried about the future of her country since she wouldn't be prez.
How has the IAEA responded to this offer?
turbo-1 said:I didn't call it a conspiracy, you did.
turbo-1 said:What is clear is that even when the Iranians agree to proposals put forth by conservative US figures, they are ignored and the news is buried, and the drum-beat for war goes on.