Iran's Blink Is NATO's Wink

 

Has Iran "finally blinked"? If you consider 'temporary suspension' a useful progress, yes... maybe.

Iran has finally blinked, reportedly agreeing to a temporary suspension of uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, as a confidence-building measure in response to growing international pressure.

But in truth, it only serves one purpose: it seeks to derail consensus over sanctioning Iran over its non-compliance to permanently abandon uranium enrichment.

Interestingly, the author, Kaveh L Afrasiabi, thinks this to be "a welcome development", for it "can potentially take the wind out of the sails of the ship of sanctions planned by the US and its allies at the United Nations Security Council." Whose side is he on?

But we've asked for it in the interest of proving our resolve to the international community to explore all diplomatic avenues before stopping a nuclear Iran militarily:

On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested that a temporary suspension might be enough to clear the way for formal negotiations.

Can you call it 'blinked', as Iran is observing and analyzing NATO's latest disgraceful refusal to honor their commitments to fight the Taliban thugs in Afghanistan? Ed Morrissey's criticism of Europe's and NATO's duplicitous behavior is music to Iranian ears; especially because they know how complex and intewoven the roots for these repeated letdowns are:

Perhaps people might recall the insistence of Europe and many here in America on engaging Afghanistan and Iraq through international alliances. We tried in both cases, and we had a lot more support from our allies with Afghanistan, as it had created much less controversy than the war against Saddam Hussein. Our relief by NATO was supposed to show America the benefits of "true" international coalitions in dealing with the complex problems of Southwest Asia.

However, once again, we see that the global community lacks the fortitude to make good on their promises and meet the challenge of their own demands. The same nations that scolded us over our supposedly unilateral approach now refuse to answer the phone when NATO calls on them to meet their pledges of troop support. The French do not belong to NATO, but the rest of Europe will blithely sit and watch Afghanistan's new democratically-elected government fall victim to a resurgent Taliban rather than lift a finger to help. Even Germany, with 2700 troops stationed in the quiet north, refuses to redeploy to assist the US, UK, and Canada in the more volatile southern region.

As with Lebanon, we hear a lot of posturing from Europe on how to conduct war and demands to implement their peace strategies. When it comes time to put themselves on the line for their strategies and goals, they increasingly go AWOL.

Much more indicative is yet again what Iran really fears: it's own people. Don't miss the latest testament entitled "One Last Nail To The Coffin Of Independent Media in Iran".

Comments

[Kenny]

[sigh] Few things are more unintentionally self-ridiculing than a man trying to parody someone whom he hates, detests, and has never troubled himself to attempt to understand.

[Loyal Republican]

Bush is right. Everyone is out to get us, so let's get them first. Let's bomb all foreigners back to the stone age so that they fear us. We need more fear. Unleash nuclear weapons in Iran. Radioactive fallout for Russia and China. And let's not stop there. Let's jail all Democrats and torture all Muslims. And then let's make Bush king. Death to anyone who disagrees!

[Eg]

Alexandra I hope you don’t mind,

One further comment here to keep a perspective for continuity as the possibility looms of Pope-gate presenting a flash-point for further exploitation by Islamist, specifically Iranian, interests, Chirac urges no sanctions on Iran, stating

"I don't believe in a solution without dialogue," Mr Chirac told Europe-1 radio, urging countries to remove the threat of sanctions against Iran.

We must, on the one hand, together, Iran and the six countries, meet and set an agenda for negotiations then start negotiations," Mr Chirac said. "Then, during these negotiations I suggest that the six renounce seizing the UN Security Council and Iran renounces uranium enrichment."

completely ignoring the past and the fact that the ’Trio’ had been empowered by the ’six countries’ to find and seek a solution which would then bring about a negotiated settlement almost 3 years ago - to which they failed miserably. Yet this new call for ‘dialogue’ illustrates exactly the points made by Charles Krauthammer in his August 25 article, the Perils of Using ‘The Allies,’

Like most multilateral efforts, the six-party talks give only the appearance of activity, thereby providing cover to a hopelessly lost cause.

The United States worked assiduously with France to draft a Security Council resolution that would create a powerful international force…. However…France became their lawyer and renegotiated the draft with the United States. The State Department acquiesced to a far weaker resolution on the quite reasonable grounds that since France was going to lead….

But we underestimated French perfidy. (Overestimating it is mathematically impossible.)

we know far too well the consequences of this ongoing saga.

The Beeb is also reporting, Pope comment 'linked to crusade',

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said recent remarks by the Pope on Islam were in line with what he called a "crusade" against Muslims.

…the controversy, he said, was the "wish of powers whose survival depends on creating crises"{ed note: No small bit of projection on the part of Khamenei}.

…the remarks by Pope Benedict XVI last Tuesday were the "latest link" in "the chain of a conspiracy to set in train a crusade".

"We do not expect anything from [US President George W] Bush, because he works for global, plundering companies and powers.”

This comes as the Iranian’s have been working, with a great degree of success, to isolate Israel and the US from those countries whom they would normally find as complimentary and natural allies.

[Eg]

Alexandra,

A closer examination of this ‘blink’ tends to reveal it was not the Iranian’s ‘blinking’ and the Eurabian’s ‘winking’ but more the likely the, ‘Eurabian’s Awakening after Being Knocked-Cold’ with the ‘Iranian’s Winking’ for a Continuation in Talks’

Dateline: 9:17 p.m. EDT, September 9, 2006
EU, Iran to continue nuclear talks

The European Union's foreign policy chief and Iran's top nuclear negotiator said their talks Saturday on Tehran's nuclear program had been constructive and that they would meet again on Sunday.

The talks at the Austrian chancellor's office were meant to see if there is common ground for negotiations between six world powers and Iran over its nuclear stance. While the five permanent Security Council members and Germany have demanded that Iran fully freeze enrichment as a condition for the talks, Tehran has steadfastly refused to do so.

Solana's spokeswoman Cristina Gallach said he found the talks "constructive and positive," and is "coming back to the table tomorrow." Larijani also said the talks were "positive."

European officials who demanded anonymity for sharing confidential information with The Associated Press said at least some of the six nations were potentially ready to consider doing without an Iranian commitment to an enrichment freeze before talks -- if Tehran committed to such a move sometime soon after the start of negotiations with them.

It was Sunday evening, September the 10th that al-Reuter’s began circulating the rumor of an unnamed ‘EU official’ suggesting a possible 2 month suspension, even though the Iranian’s had made it quite clear suspension of enrichment was not on the table, the specter and "The era of suspension is over" - No deadlock on Iran nuclear case - Asefi

Referring to suspension of Iran uranium enrichment activities as a precondition for resumption of nuclear talks), the spokesman said "The era of suspension is over."

"The question of the suspension (of uranium enrichment) is a thing of the past. Iran will not take a step back," stressed the official.

Asharq Alawsat, the same day, provided another look into the Eurabian strategy and their faltering position: EU-Iran Nuclear Talks Resume as Tehran Rules Out Enrichment Halt

Although Larijani reported "some progress" after the first meeting, the Iranian foreign ministry in Tehran said Sunday that the question of suspending enrichment work -- a key demand if sanctions are to be avoided -- was a "thing of the past".

"Iran will not take a step back," ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters Sunday.

Russia, like China a key trading partner with Iran, is also reluctant to impose sanctions.

And European countries such as Germany, France and Italy fear damage to their considerable trade with Iran if strong economic measures are imposed.

A senior European diplomat told AFP: "The United States is trying hard to get sanctions. Others are trying to put their foot on the brakes."

Then came the rumor of some 2 month suspension.

Dateline: Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:37pm ET
Iran offers 2-month atomic enrichment halt-diplomat

BERLIN (Reuters) - Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani offered a 2-month suspension of Tehran's nuclear enrichment program in weekend talks with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, an EU diplomat said on Sunday.

"Larijani offered a 2-month suspension. But we don't know any details about when it would begin, whether before or after negotiations with Iran on the (incentives) package would begin," said the EU diplomat from one of the six countries that offered Iran incentives to freeze its uranium enrichment program.

He{the above ’EU diplomat} was speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk with journalists.

On Monday the Turkish Daily provided more insight.

Dateline: Mon Sep 11, 2006 (time not specified)
Iran and EU say progress made in nuclear talks

Iran's nuclear negotiator and the EU foreign policy chief said on Sunday that they had made progress in talks in the search for a compromise to avoid possible U.N. sanctions….

Iran's Ali Larijani said some misunderstandings had been cleared up, while the European Union's Javier Solana said the meeting was productive and that the two would meet again soon.

"And as mentioned by Dr. Solana, many of the misunderstandings were removed,"

And one of those ’misunderstandings’ was the possibility of Iranian suspension,

But, fearing the economic repercussions of isolating the world's No. 4 oil supplier, many in the EU prefer a face-saving compromise that might lie in getting Tehran to curb enrichment after the start of a process to implement the benefits package.

In Tehran, the Foreign Ministry repeated on Sunday that Iran would accept no preconditions for negotiations and again dismissed the idea that it would agree to shelve enrichment.

"Suspension is an issue that is in the past. We cannot return to the past.

So, just as the Euro’s and French betrayed the US with Iraq and, more recently, by doing the bidding of the Arab states with Lebanon and the completely useless Resolution 1701, the Euro’s are about to toss ’sanctions’ out the window - EU Calling to Give Iran More Time - leaving only one option open in dealing with Iran.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

You see what happens when we aren't allowed to say what we really think, in the interests of "not giving any offence"?

You've never balked at saying the most disgusting and debased things, GD, just givin' ya back some love.... About high time, don't you think?

[Ghost Dansing]

Well I never! I am in a snit over your little hissy fit!

You know, Crusader...self censorship will only lead to repressed feelings and emotions. We must learn to express ourselves to avoid high blood pressure and other forms of cardiovascular illness, not to mention depression and other maladies of the mind.

And as for the mistypations of my former posts:

humanity's = humanities
human = humand

And whilst we are running with scissors and belching our opinions far and wide...well...well...I have nothing to belch at this time!

So, have a nice day Crusader. :)

[brian]

Hey Crusader! Tell'em what you REALLY think, mate!

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Me and Albert Ball, mate, me and Albert Ball.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Guess what GD, I don't give a rat's ass whether we end up "just like them". I'm not fighting to preserve your polite multi-cult latte-shop fictions, mate.

I really don't give a s**t how many of their snotty little bastards we have to kill, maim, disfigure or torture (guess what , I've now morphed from ambivalence, to joy at the suffering and death of my enemies - I know, I'm a terrible Christian, and for that I'll pay the price He sees fit when His time comes).

Right now, I'm fighting for the right of my little girl to schooling, healthcare, and freedom of movement. It's really that f***in' simple, mate and if you don't get it, you need to be disenfranchised pretty quick. And if the thought of guys like me being nasty in fighting this war repulses you, then I got an idea for you. MOVE.

What you won't do (and I'd kill the likes of you too if I had no other choice in the matter) is remove from me my natural right of self-defence, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

I nominate GD for President. He seems to be so up on exactly how to secure my freedom. Bang on.

Lemme tell you some'in' GD, I don't give a damn about how you feel about yourself inside. At the end of the day, I wanna get on a plane and go visit my Mum, and not have to wear a jumpsuit, and have all my luggage sent on a separate flight, because some goat-molesting, child-raping nitwit decided to "go get respect" by murdering his way across the Arabian peninsula, and now his follofwers have decided that they too need to get "respect" by intimidating the rest of us.

Doubt the moral basis of my right to self-defence? Go f*** yourselves, I hope you and the people you support are good with firearms and explosives!
With all due respect, GD go shove your feelings somewhere ugly. Fat lot of good all those principles and the "respect and sympathy" of the rest of the world did us on 9/11.

[Ghost Dansing]

Yes Mac, it is difficult to attack the morality of the Bush administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/us/politics/15assess.html?hp&ex=1158379200&en=98da997176bcf3b5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The Senate Armed Services Committee defied President Bush on Thursday, with four Republicans joining Democrats in approving a plan for the trial and interrogation of terrorism suspects that the White House has rejected as unacceptable.

The Republican rebellion was led by Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the committee chairman, with backing from Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine.

Colin L. Powell, Mr. Bush’s former secretary of state, sided with the senators, saying in a letter that the president’s plan to redefine the Geneva Conventions would encourage the world to “doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” and “put our own troops at risk.”

The main dispute between the White House and the Senate Republicans revolves around a provision known as Common Article 3, which prohibits inhumane treatment of combatants seized in wartime. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, has argued that the article’s prohibition against “outrages upon personal dignity” must be clarified so that troops and C.I.A. personnel know what is permissible in the interrogation of terrorism suspects.

But Senators Warner, McCain and Graham say the Bush proposal would send a signal that the United States has abandoned its commitment to human rights, and invite other nations to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit, eliminating protections for American troops seized in future conflicts.

Part of our fight against Islamic extremist terrorism must include accentuation of our Humand Rights values, not actions that dilute our values and place us on the same plane as heretics who murder in the name of Allah.

[mac Brachman]

Ghost: Thanks. I just saw on the israpundit website (israpundit.com, not to be confused with instapundit) that the great Koranic scholar, statesman, and diplomat Ahmadinejad will be visiting NY soon. Their source was a Kurdish nationalist site that fingers A. (I get tired of writing out his whole name) as the prime backer of Hizbollah, which this Kurdish group blames for the murder of one of its leaders.

Rich: thanks for the link about the perils faced by advocates of basic human rights for Muslim women.

To all: Israpundit (on Sept. 13) also details the shenanigans engaged in by Moveon.org in faililng (perhaps deliberately to police its sister websites for virulent anti-Semitic remarks. Israpundit puts the lie to Moveon's excuse that it simply wasn't monitoring the site properly; Israpundit notes that all posts critical of Moveon had been deleted, but not the racist and anti-Semitic ones. And these people have the gall to attack the morality of the Bush administration! Shalom, Mac Brachman

[rich]

Spiegel Online

Advocates of Muslim Women face constant danger by Cordula Meyer:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,436820,00.html

[Ghost Dansing]

Mac... it's a scary halloween poem like Alexandra's scary halloween type picture... so I got in the halloween mood and thought the poem would go well with the picture...the melting skull and all.

I didn't know what to say about Iran... we're all on the train to Hell with Amahdinijad. The original question was whether or not Iran "blinked", and if they did, was this even a good thing. The answer was that they didn't blink, after all.

But, even though the picture was icky, and I'm sure done as a retaliation to Iran, or at least as some sort of act of subliminal defiance, or maybe just a graphic statement that Alexandra felt particularly icky about the whole thing... I did take the opportunity to look at Brom pictures on the internet for over an hour.

Did you know he (Brom) is the son of an Army Aviator?

"As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? . . ."

One can be convicted of whatever one wishes to be convicted, but one can only hope one's actions are pleasing to God.

When it comes to God, human beings don't know squat diddly... except through his Son Jesus... who came to tell us we don't know squat diddly about God (I paraphrase).

Neither our reasoning nor our violence is of God or ordained by God, except insofar as God is the author of all things, but transcends all things as well.

Violence is human violence, and reasoning is human reasoning, and many people being violent think they have a reason for doing so.

If I were to pick the blasphemy in the whole thing, it would be humanities incessant reasoning to violence, then suggesting that any of it had to do with God... spreading His word, will or whatever.

The violence, the outcome of the violence and the reason for the violence from Man's perspective, probably has little to do with God or even his judgement of us.

As the story goes, human beings were made in the "image and likeness" of God... we are not God's incarnation, except in the case of that one God Man, Jesus.

"As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? . . ."

It's a Greek idea about God's nature, stemming from the cultural value they had cultivated for reason long before they were monotheists, and for the second part, we don't know if it is true at all, let alone "always and intrinsically true".

We don't know if reason has any meaning to God, other than within the context of His perfect knowledge regarding the behavior of His creation.

I suspect, if one researched a little more, we could also find the impact of the Greeks in Muslim thinking as well.

I personnally like the Catholic Catechism on the matter of violence... and one can see the reasoning... However, the faithful believe God has already won the conflict between Good and Evil in Eternity, regardless of how gruesome it looks during our short moment in the sun.

http://www.catholicdoors.com/catechis/cat2258.htm

[rich]

Forced conversions:

Benedict XVI 9/12/2006 quotes 1391? dialog between "the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both."

The more things change -- the more they stay the same.

http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748

" . . . In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("synlogo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? . . ."

[nofate]

Alexandra: pardon me for jumping in here again, but I just ran across this post by NewsBuster Free Stinker, relating to WMD in Iraq, and thought you might be interested if you haven't seen it.
Saddam Hussein - The Threat
Posted by Free Stinker on September 1, 2006 - 15:51.

MSM bias against the Bush(43) Administration has been well documented here at NewsBusters. One of the more egregious deceptions by the MSM is the “No WMD” lie, followed by “Saddam was not a threat” in a close second. I have taken an existing CASUS BELLI list of mine and combined it with information gathered by other diligent NB-ers to create what I hope is a comprehensive list demonstrating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Hat Tip to Chris Donohoe, and Sua Sponte 75, for some of the descriptions & links.

1. Saddam was known to have WMD and used it in at least 3 separate situations.

etc....

[mac Brachman]

Ghost: Sorry, I don't get it; I'm very dim and concrete these days. Relevance of your post? If it's a "west Texas cowboy" ballad in the style of the late, great C & W crooner Marty Robbins's "El Paso" (covered by the Grateful Dead, with Bob Weir singing lead, among others), then, sorry, it won't replace Robbins's haunting tune in my personal memory bank. If it's an allegory or allusion to a certain current president and state of world affairs, then, not to be repetitive, but, I don't get it; I'm very dim and concrete these days. Please explicate. Thanks. Shalom, Mac Brachman

[Ghost Dansing]

The Iranians finally forced Alexandra to retalitate, and post a really really gross holloween picture. The bastards are just goading us into more and more extreme actions!

THE HELL BOUND TRAIN

A Texas cowboy lay down on a barroom floor,
Having drunk so much he could drink no more;
So he fell asleep with a troubled brain
To dream that he rode on a hell-bound train.

The engine with murderous blood was damp
And was brilliantly lit with a brimstone lamp;
An imp, for fuel, was shoveling bones,
While the furnace rang with a thousand groans.

The boiler was filled with lager beer
And the devil himself was the engineer;
The passengers were a most motley crew-
Church member, atheist, Gentile, and Jew,

Rich men in broad cloth, beggars in rags,
Handsome young ladies, and withered old hags,
Yellow and black men, red, brown, and white,
All chained together-O God, what a sight!

While the train rushed on at an awful pace-
The sulphurous fumes scorched their hands and face;
Wider and wider the country grew,
As faster and faster the engine flew.
Louder and louder the thunder crashed
And brighter and brighter the lightning flashed;
Hotter and hotter the air became
Till the clothes were burned from each quivering frame.

And out of the distance there arose a yell,
"Ha, ha," said the devil, "we're nearing hell"
Then oh, how the passengers all shrieked with pain
And begged the devil to stop the train.
But he capered about and danced for glee,
And laughed and joked at their misery.
"My faithful friends, you have done the work
And the devil never can a payday shirk.

"You've bullied the weak, you've robbed the poor,
The starving brother you've turned from the door;
You've laid up gold where the canker rust,
And have given free vent to your beastly lust.
"You've justice scorned, and corruption sown,
And trampled the laws of nature down.
You have drunk, rioted, cheated, plundered, and lied,
And mocked at God in your hell-born pride.

"You have paid full fare, so I'll carry you through,
For it's only right you should have your due.
Why, the laborer always expects his hire,
So I'll land you safe in the lake of fire,

"Where your flesh will waste in the flames that roar,
And my imps torment you forevermore."
Then the cowboy awoke with an anguished cry,
His clothes wet with sweat and his hair standing high.

Then he prayed as he never had prayed till that hour
To be saved from his sin and the demon's power;
And his prayers and his vows were not in vain,
For he never rode the hell-bound train.

-Anonymous

[Mike Anderson]

Jeez, Louise--our diplomats need to get out a little more often. Haven't they ever heard of a head fake?

[nofate]

Just a tidbit from One Last Nail To The Coffin Of Independent Media in Iran": Echoing the rhetoric of the nation's 1979 Islamic revolution, Ahmadi Nezhad, a fanatic Shi’a Muslim, appears determined to remake Iran by reviving the fundamentalist goals pursued under the republic's late founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Upon taking office last year, the hard line, anti-Western, anti-Israeli president replaced nearly all his country's governors and lower provincial officials, as well as 40 ambassadors. Many of Iran's top government officials are now either former commanders of the elite Revolutionary Guards or former hard-line security officials.

Last week, he urged students to push for a purge of liberal, secular university teachers, and dozens of such instructors have been sent into early retirement during Ahmadi Nezhad's rule.

Both Ahmadi Nezhad and Ayatollah Khameneh’i appear on a list of "press freedom predators" compiled by the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders each year.

On orders from the leader, the Judiciary shut down more than 200 newspapers, weeklies and other periodicals between 1999 and 2001, most of them pro reform or independent.

Sounds like moderation to me. Not.

[nofate]

From a review on Amazon.com: This book is written by Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, an advisor of past president of Islamic Republic, MULLAH Khatami. It provides interviews with the past key nuclear decision-makers in Islamic Republic, Europe, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).The history of Iran's nuclear program is old and goes back to Pahlavi Dynasty, which could be completed by now. Afrasiabi presents a marketing case for the current so-called Islamic Regime in Iran , drawing on his first-hand knowledge of the system. Thanks. Afrasiabi, also the writer of the Asia Times article.

...Iran's nuclear chief, Ali Larijani...did not rule out the possibility that Iran would cease uranium enrichment for a month or two...Rice said Iran needed to suspend uranium enrichment before talks could begin, but she did not rule out something less than a permanent suspension...


This is a "welcome development"???

Here is Afrasiabi's assessment of the Iranian negotiator: "...Larijani has been a master tactician so far and in making this important concession has proved that he is not quite as unpragmatic and rigid as previously believed... So the "master tactician" got the inflexible and incendiary Bush to make concessions:"...In a sign of moderation toward Iran, US President George W Bush permitted a visa to Khatami and made the conciliatory gesture of stating his willingness "to learn about that country". This is a timely turnabout from his incendiary remarks in August, calling Iran the leader of a global "Islamic fascist" movement."

What this is really all about: "...In fact, the real, clear and present danger of a US military threat against Iran has caused a state of semi-emergency that the government's leaders yearn to end and to return to the state of normalcy - this against the present pattern of war games and war preparation draining precious resources and deflecting from burning economic priorities..." and Russia's foot dragging on completing their nuclear reactor. "Normalcy"??? Right. (note: all emphasis, mine.)

[ME]

Of course Iran wouldn't permanently stop enriching uranium as a pretext to talks. You wouldn't either, because the expected goal of the west in said talks is to get them to permanently stop enriching uranium.

Do you concede everything before negotiations? No, that would make negotiations pointless.

This IS a welcome development (it is what we've been asking them to do before talking) and I doubt that it will take the wind out of anyone's sails. The international community isn't going to see this action and declare "OK, its all over, we can go home now". Talks will move forward. This is a good thing.

This is only a blow to those who wish that Iran would be completely unreasonable and drive the world to immediate military action. To those people, a show of good faith is a setback or ruse.