|
Tuesday Oct 06, 2009
Rosner's Domain: Iran time-saver: 3 articles on topic 1Posted by SHMUEL ROSNER
Comments: 13      3 more on Iran. It is time to clarify the debate over Iran and its nuclear program. It's easy to criticize the current course adopted by the United States and its allies, to huff and puff about Iranian mendacity, to point out that Russia and China won't agree to tougher measures against Tehran, and to detail the leaks in the sanctions already in place. But what, then, should the United States do? The critics are eager to denounce the administration from the sidelines for being weak but rarely detail what they would do to be "tough." Would they attack Iran today? If not, then what should we do? It is time to put up or shut up on Iran. By endorsing Iran's use of its illegitimately enriched uranium, Mr. Obama weakens his argument that Iran must comply with its "international obligations." Indeed, the Geneva deal undercuts Mr. Obama's proposal to withhold more sanctions if Iran does not enhance its nuclear program by allowing Iran to argue that continued enrichment for all peaceful purposes should be permissible. Now Iran will oppose new sanctions and argue for repealing existing restrictions. Every other aspiring proliferator is watching how violating Security Council resolutions not only carries no penalty but provides a shortcut to international redemption. And Stephens with this pessimistic (and somewhat hysterical) article from the future: Jan. 20, 2010 NEW YORK - When American diplomats sat down for the first in a series of face-to-face talks with their Iranian counterparts last October in Geneva, few would have predicted that what began as a negotiation over Tehran's nuclear programs would wind up in a stunning demand by the Security Council that Israel give up its atomic weapons. Yet that's just what the U.N. body did this morning, in a resolution that was as striking for the way member states voted as it was for its substance. All 10 nonpermanent members voted for the resolution, along with permanent members Russia, China and the United Kingdom. France and the United States abstained. By U.N. rules, that means the resolution passes.
1 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Tuesday Oct 06, 2009
I question if there is a single benefit for Israel in belonging to the United Nations. With its current membership, the only way Israel could get a positive majority vote is if it declared it was going to destroy itself and save the Muslims the trouble. If Iran needs electricity, it should be allowed to buy electricity. Who doesn't know that enriched uranium developed for "peaceful" purposes by Iran, Russia or anyone else can be quickly turned into weapons grade uranium? As long as the centrifuges are spinning, the game goes on. The actions of the UN and so-called allies will only accelerate Israel.s timetable.
2 | Tom, US, Tuesday Oct 06, 2009
Bolton is an insane loon and anything the idiot says deserves no consideration at all !
3 | Steven, USA, Tuesday Oct 06, 2009
To #2: Tom, your careful logic requires a sophisticated rebuttal: No, he isn't, and everything he says deserves consideration. QED.
4 | Sally - U.S.A., Tuesday Oct 06, 2009
According to Contentions, Iran's Supreme National Security Council announced that no deal was reached to process LEU outside of Iran. Also, Obama cut off all aid to the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (which documents Human Rights abuses in Iran). The speculation that Iran is going to "talk" in order to let the clock run out appears to be well founded.
5 | Mladen Andrijasevic, Be'er Sheva, Israel, Tuesday Oct 06, 2009
Rosner, you call Stephenss article pessimistic (and somewhat hysterical). Hysterical? Time is running out. His Wonderfulness in his appeasement is bringing Israel and the rest of the world to the brink of a nuclear war. Just read Ahmadinejads speech at the UN General Assembly: http://www.un.org/ga/64/generaldebate/pdf/IR_en.pdf
6 | Mladen Andrijasevic, Be'er Sheva, Israel, Tuesday Oct 06, 2009
I found in Paul Johnsons Modern Times this paragraph about the reaction to George Orwells article on the Spanish Civil War: But when Orwells exposure appeared in the New English Weekly, it attracted little notice. The intellectuals of the Left did not want to know the objective truth, they were unwilling for their illusions to be shattered". Today, some 72 years later nothing much has changed.
7 | Mike Feldman Canada, Wednesday Oct 07, 2009
5 & 8. Wise words from Jerusalem Post's resident N-z-. Now that you've announced that Iran has no nuclear weapons intentions, I'm sure the Israeli leadership will move on to more importanct matters. To-day you've shown great restraint in only calling Bolton a loon, Steven a psycopath and Mladen a psychotic. When you say Israel will have incoming within 40 minutes if not less, where is it ïcoming" from? Got a feeling that given your deep cover contacts in Russia, I could guess.
8 | Terry - Eilat, Israel, Wednesday Oct 07, 2009
#7 Mladen A. - George Orwell is the perfect reference for today's political climate. Leftism is not only best described as a mental condition but it's proponants are best described as members of a crank religious cult whose devotion to the faith increases the more reality shows it to be false. True believers ......they cling to illusions to the bitter end, impervious to all evidence. They live in a world composed of rhetoric, as Orwell said, of Newspeak, where words are emptied of meaning, detached from reference to the real world, distorted until they take on the opposite meaning.
9 | Sally - U.S.A., Wednesday Oct 07, 2009
Stephen's article reflects what had happened in 1979 under Carter. Carter purposely abstained in the 1979 UNSC vote against Israel and the resolution passed. Therefore, to call Stephen's article hysterical, is forgetting history.
10 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Wednesday Oct 07, 2009
My disagreement with the January 2010 prediction is that I think the UK and US would abstain, while France would vote against. When given an opportunity, France loves to be opposed to US policies, and in philosophical terms, I think Sarkozy's attitude towards the Muslims is the oppostite of Obama's. Sad but interesting to see France positioned to the right of the US.
11 | Mike Morales USA, Wednesday Oct 07, 2009
There is an opportunity for President Obama to lead and make Iran accountable for it's nuclear program. Thus far, however, it is the French who has shown true leadership. As the USA tries to find a way out of Afghanistan without looking like we are leaving, more American soldiers die due to the lack of action. In Iraq the President promised before the election to leave. He knows he can't do that without affecting Afghanistan and Pakistan. Israel is caught in the middle without a sure partner in the USA as in the past.
More dithering means more time for Iran to build it's weapons.
12 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Monday Oct 12, 2009
Turkey should be nuked because they refuse to sing Israel Uber Alles with the rest of us !
13 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Tuesday Oct 13, 2009
Any sane regular poster on this site would know that I did not write #12. However a creepy stalker-poster comes to mind who craves attention and has nothing better to do but track me. Sad life. Compare to #10, which I did write, and try to find a common thread.
|
 |
Search this blog
The Israel Factor, Sep. 2009: Obama is rapidly losing favor with panel of Israeli experts
Tags:
Blogroll |
Post your own comment
