Iran: 'We'll Stop Nuclear Enrichment If You Do'

by admin on February 20, 2007 · 12 comments

Do you like this story?

you first

We have an interesting proposal to consider today:

Ahmadinejad said earlier Tuesday that his country was ready to stop its enrichment program and return to talks — but attached a condition that the international community was unlikely to accept. He said Western nations also must stop their own enrichment activities.

“Justice demands that those who want to hold talks with us shut down their nuclear fuel cycle program too,” Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in northern Iran. “Then, we can hold dialogue under a fair atmosphere.”

Other than the fact that I don’t believe a word of it, and he knows we’d never do such a thing, what else stinks about this proposal?

First of all, tomorrow is the deadline for Iran to halt uranium enrichment activities. So, promising they will return to talks is pretty moot at this point. They’ve had years to “talk”, they had a chance to prevent sanctions, and they’ve laughed it all off as “illegal”, implying they have every right to build nukes and send them into Israel. In case you didn’t know, they haven’t stopped their pursuit of The Bomb. The kicker to this is that sanctions aren’t even going to be immediate. The U.N. has to mull it over to see if and when they will even follow through with their strongly worded letter they sent Iran, asking them ever so sweetly not to keep trying to wipe Israel off the map (my paraphrase). Perhaps they’ll send an even stronger strongly worded letter?

Second, its pretty clear who these “western nations” are, and they aren’t China, Pakistan or Russia, who aren’t exactly our best buddies right now. Ahmadinejad is pointing fingers at the U.S. (and possibly the UK) in some absurd game of chicken with nukes. He knows we won’t do it, and by saying we won’t it “exposes” us as the tyrannical oppressors so many in the world, and here at home, are so eager to have out there as the main point. Look at these numbers:

The total number of warheads for each country is as follows:

United States 10,400*
Russia 17,000**
China 400
France 350
United Kingdom 192
Israel (estimated) 75-200
Pakistan (estimated) 25-50
India (estimated) 30-35
TOTAL Approx 29,000

* The figure for the United States includes around 3,000 warheads in reserve. That is, not deployed but not destroyed.
** The figure for Russia includes around 9,000 warheads of an indeterminate status. Some may be officially retired and awaiting disassembly [sic]; others may be in short-or long-term storage.

With Russia being very snugly in bed with Iran lately, we are obviously not going to de-nuke. Russia is on a clear course, and is attempting to establish itself as the new SupaPowah, sacrificing its delicate alliances with the U.S. Just a year ago we were worried about Russia and Iran entering into a deal to enrich uranium. Russia still had some of its marbles at the time, because they wouldn’t go through with the deal on Iranian soil. Iran refused to do it at the time, since enriching uranium on Russian soil would be easier to track by the U.N. (I thought their intentions were peaceful?). Now, Russia bought the cow and has been building a nuclear plant in southern Iran, as part of The Bushehr Contract. Thankfully the project has slowed, due in part to Iran not paying its bills:

Russia emphasizes that Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear energy program, and Russian President Vladimir Putin and other officials have said repeatedly that Moscow would honor the Bushehr contract.

Putin’s increasingly defiant posture toward the United States would make it highly unlikely that the Kremlin could opt out of the agreement, particularly now that U.S. concerns have been eased by an agreement obliging Iran to return spent fuel — which could potentially be used for a weapons program — to Russia.

In December, Russia supported a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing limited sanctions against Iran over its refusal to stop uranium enrichment, but the support came only after an initial proposal that would have imposed curbs on the Bushehr plant was dropped.

Why Russia wants to help Iran go nuclear, is beyond me. Can the quest to be Number One! blind them this much? Hello! Iran will turn on you the second it has the chance, Mr. Putin.

What about the other nuke-holders? Pakistan is the hotbed for Al Qaeda, China is not our ally, and don’t forget that N. Korea still seeks nuclear weapons (despite recent empty promises). We will never “just all get along”, so this whole “I will if you will” is childish at best.

Lastly, until the day that Iran has some kind of miraculous regime change, and says they are copacetic with existing in a world that Israel exists, no one is going to be comfortable with Iran seeking nuclear energy. There’s lots of hubbub in the press about President Bush’s administration going easy on Iran, saying military action is not on the table. However, if you read between the lines, and read lots of “off the record” information out there, “saving Iran” is what Bush wants to make his legacy. Of course they have to keep the American and the World public believing that they want a diplomatic solution, after all, they have to keep the moonbats at bay. But I’m not willing to believe they are blind to the threat of Iran. I think they are keeping their real intentions on the down low (remember when information was still classified in the U.S.?? the good ‘ol days of covert ops, when we didn’t have a TV camera at every combat mission?). It takes some faith to believe in Bush these days, but we haven’t any other choice.

Related posts:

  1. UN To Impose 'Sanctions' On Iran *UPDATED* (scroll for updates)
  2. The Eve of World War III
  3. Iran in U.S. Crosshairs….War inevitable?
  4. Iran war likely before '08 election
  5. A Warning, a Threat and a Countdown
  • jokulhaups

    Yeeesh.. thanks for the fear-mongering. You think Iranians aren’t scared of all the nuclear bombs that other countries have? Plus, no one has determine how much credence to give to the Iranian claims that they have an energy crisis of their own.
    Maybe we should have opened our mouths when Iran started warning everyone in 2003 – rather than pretending that Ahmenidejad and Putin weren’t going to be “best buddies”. Where else would he turn? Canada? It was either the US, China or Russia. And since the US turned down talks, guess who Iran would prefer.
    Why didn’t we agree to help them build a safe reactor? Now, we have to worry about Russia’s latest anti-American craze brigade. Stop wielding the nuclear card in lame attempts at vilifying people, it makes us look bad. I’d be far more concerned about Russia’s many nukes (even though most are probably rotting away) now that they are starting to get vocal again.

  • http://seniorspeaks.blogspot.com Senior

    I don’t think Iran would turn on Russia unless it had dealt with the US, Israel and allies of those nations. Russia is ruled by a very nasty regime right now, a regime that says it wants world peace despite stationing troops in Moldolva and Georgia, and using gas as a blackmail weapon. You didn’t mention China much in this entry, but China is an allie of Iran, from where it receives its oil. If the US attacks Iran, I think that some shia elements in Iraq would become more hostile towards the US than they are. I’m not sure how other countries in Iraq would react, but the UK is pulling troops out now, so the US may be vulnerable. Of course if the Democrats take power in the US, Iran will get the bomb and be able to threaten its use without the US doing much to stop it. The question is, why wait? Why wait until the nation has the bomb before sorting it out? The mistake has already been made with North Korea, and it is being made again. When will the US and all developed democracies learn that they shouldn’t leave it too late before acting. European nations should know this better than any other, considering what happened when they kept waiting after Hitler took power.

  • sushiman

    jokulhaups :

    “You think Iranians aren’t scared of all the nuclear bombs that other countries have?”

    Think about this (i know thinking for yourself is hard): how many nukes have ‘we’ and other countries had… and for how many years have we had them… and how many have been dropped on Iran? The answers are: alot, a long time, and zero. In fact, to my knowledge the only two nukes EVER dropped on a country were the two on Japan during WWII.

    Now ask yourself this question: How long will Iran hold off launching a nuclear strike, once they have the ability to make one? The answer, most likely, is… not long at all.

    Your argument is about as logical as this one:
    “Cops want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but… DONT U THINK THOSE CRIMINALS ARE JUST AS SCARED OF THE COPS GUNS? THEY SHOULD HAVE EQUAL GUN-POWER SO ITS A FAIR FIGHT.”

    Russia never launched a nuke during the entire cold war… Iran will launch a nuke the instant they are ready to. Get a clue and stop believing the LIES people that HATE you and want to KILL you are feeding to you through propaganda.

    wow…

    to Senior :

    thank you for bringing a brain to the discussion.

  • Sistainfidel

    jokulhaups,

    “weilding the nuclear card”? Hmmm…now I’m the one who’s bringing up nukes (not the U.N. or Iran), and I’m villifying poor widdle Ahmadinejad. As long as Iran’s president is saying “death to America” whenever he speaks, I’m not really concerned with their right to nuclear weapons, or his rep.

    Is your argument that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons, or that they need nuclear energy to help their “crisis”, and that’s their motive here? Iran was not looking for someone to help them out of their energy problem, they were looking for an accomplice to help them obtain nukes so they could destroy Israel, and then us.

    “fear mongering” is the left’s favorite talking point. “Don’t be scared people of America, there’s nothing to be afraid of!” doesn’t sway me, when the facts show that we have very real threats out there.

  • Sistainfidel

    Senior,

    I agree with you that Iran won’t turn on Russia until its done with us. I guess that’s what I meant by “the second they have the chance”, or better “when they have time”.

  • jokulhaups

    @sushiman: Well, way to blow my arguments out of the water.. next time, try not being an idiot. So Iran is the enemy, right? Therefore they will obvious fire a nuke as soon as they make one, because.. well, they are the enemy. Do you even think about what you are saying?
    Everyone knows nuclear war is a stalemate, that’s why Russia and the States never fired one off aside from countless tests. By claiming that Iran will launch one off as soon as it has one, you are showing just how clearly you think through a veil of bigotry.
    As for “propaganda”, what do you think this article and comments like that are? Certainly not propaganda: “stop believing the LIES” etc etc. You make a strong argument, to someone who thinks that everyone in Iran is stupid. Unfortunately, not everyone looks down on people who are clearly capable of developing potentially dangerous technology. To underestimate their intelligence is plainly ludicrous. You are assuming that they are just smart enough to build a bomb, and yet too stupid to realize that consequences of launching one.
    I’d be more worried about Russia and Iran joining together as a show of solidarity once they have nuclear power/weapons. It could spell disaster, even if they are using it for legitimate purposes. But do you stop to consider that? Hell no. Because to you, any nuclear program is clearly the Manhattan project, and any newcomer to the nuclear arena will instantly launch their nukes confidently. Great arguments there.
    By the way, I never made the argument that you claim I made. I simply stated that there are people living in fear of nuclear weapons. Equating this to me saying “they deserve to have a nuclear weapon” is pretty damn tiresome. Grow a pair, and argue against what I say, not what you want me to say.

  • Sistainfidel

    jokulhaups,

    Iran is our enemy, I’m sorry to break it to you. You seem to care about this issue, so I’m surprised you’ve ignored all the evil things the President of Iran has said about America, about Israel, and what they (Iran) intend to do to us. You must have also missed any recent news about Iran funding and giving weapons to terrorists fighting against us in Iraq. They are fighting us in a country where there’s a war going on, yet you want us to stop believing Iran is our enemy?

    “Everyone” doesn’t know that nuclear war is a stalemate, only those who are sane do. Iran has made no bones about its desire to destroy Israel as soon as it can. No one has ever said Iran is stupid, they are dangerous and the current regime is evil. For you to assume that they will get nuclear weapons but be “wise” about the use of them is dangerously naive. They have made repeated threats, and if you’ve read current news about their intents, they don’t mind if their own people (Muslims) have to pay the price too. It doesn’t bother them that so many innocent non-Jews would die in a nuclear attack, its seen as Allah’s will. These are not rational people we are talking about. For you to argue its about intelligence is like saying Hitler was dumb. He was an evil genius. Maybe you doubt evil exists in the world, and believe that if everyone were just more “logical”, we’d all be fine. Somehow I think the widows of 9-11 would disagree.

    By the way, saying “You think Iranians aren’t scared of all the nuclear bombs that other countries have?” heavily implies you believe they have a right to seek nukes. If you don’t mean that, fine. Be more clear next time.

  • jokulhaups

    @Sistainfidel: I was not implying a “right to bear nuclear arms”. It’s not in my power to say such foolish things. Everyone will be upset when they have a working bomb; I know I will. But what’s better right now? Attacking recklessly and inspiring even more hatred? American’s allies are getting thin, and now Russia has come out of the political closet and declared some strong things.
    We’ve got more to worry about than Iran, and I was just pointing out that we’re partly to blame for the situation. If we play into the “death to Americans” semi-bluff, the tenous (some would say almost dead) resistance to open holy war might become a thing of the past. And then what? Bush claimed Iraq wouldn’t escalate into assault on many countries. Whether or not we’re justified doesn’t matter to the people there: they hear what their governments want them to hear. And while many of us question our government, statistics I’ve read show far fewer of them question their governments.
    As for any partisan leanings, I’m neither left nor right. Call me a chicken if you want, but I’ll freely admit that I’m wrong most of the time; but I like to think about what the rest of the world thinks, not just our allies. Anyway, it’s clear I erred earlier in being vague. I’ll open the floor to more eloquent people now.

  • Sistainfidel

    I agree we have more to worry about than just Iran, but this post is about Iran. I can’t possibly list all our war on terror worries in one place, but check back, because I’m sure we address them all. I’m mystified by anyone who says that “death to America” is a semi-bluff, because we had 9-11 that happened on our own soil, which changed things forever. Its only been 5 years, and our government hasn’t even begun to secure our safety since then.

    I’m sure people in most of the countries you are probably referring to (i.e., the middle east) are not able to come out and openly question their government. People who speak out against Isamic rulers are routinely hunted and put to death. Once Iraq was liberated we had civilians coming out of the woodwork describing how horrible their lives were. Besides, when the safety of American citizens is at stake, I’m not going to be up at night worrying about what other countries think of us. Our first loyalty is to our country, not being liked by everyone. The UK is slipping as an allly, because new leadership is about to come into play (leadership much like our Dems). Their “world community view” is nice and dandy, but only in a world where people are all reasonable and level-headed. “Let’s agree to disagree” doesn’t fly with radical Islam.

  • http://sweatingthroughfog.blogspot.com/ Sweating Through Fog

    I’m wondering if I can jump into this discussion with a different perspective. Serveral points are worth mentioning because they are all related:
    1) Iran is indeed our enemy
    2) Saudi Arabia is also an enemy, and given her funding of Islamic radicals worldwide, perhaps a greater one.
    3) We cannot prevent a radical Islamic regime from possessing nuclear weapons. The fact is that Pakistan is hanging by a thread. There have been many assassination attempts against Musarraf, and it just takes one success to have a pro-Bin Laden regime armed with Pakistan’s weapons.

    There is no sure safe way forward here. We can indeed prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – we have the military resources to do that. We do not however, have the military resources to occupy the country and force a government change – the American public will not support the sort of WWII carnage that would be necessary to accomplish that. we have the power, but not the will.

    So all we can do is buy time, and sow discord among our enemies. One course I would consider is this:
    1) Withdraw immediately from Iraq and Afghanistan
    2) Stand aside in the Iran, Saudi, Turkish regional war that will follow. We have to stop believing that “stability” is our protection in the Mideast.
    3) Do everything possible, as a nation, to lower the worldwide price of crude oil. Have a 10 year, progressive, strangling tax on crude oil consumption in the US, and at the same time create tax incentives for crude oil discovery and production anywhere outside the Mideast.
    4) If the Iranians continue with the nuclear program, give Israel a nuclear submarine.
    5) Announce that in case of a WMD strike against America, from anyone, anywhere, we will use nuclear weapons to destroy the oil and gas infrastructure in and around the Persian gulf.

  • Sistainfidel

    Sweating Through Fog,

    You are right that many Americans do not have the will. However, I’m not willing to give up just because its a difficult, perhaps impossible, goal (preventing Iran from obtaining nukes). We may not be able to stop nukes from being manufactured or even sent to our land (or Israel), but we could never live with ourselves if we did not at least try.

    Withdrawing immediately would leave the Iraqi people abandoned. Its a humanitarian pickle, but we’re there (regardless of how we got there), and we can’t just leave them. Not yet. Also you didn’t mention the fact that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, so what would withdrawing accomplish on that front? Withdrawal will not only tell the Enemy “we’re weak, now’s the time to really hit us hard”, but it frees up money and resources for them to start large scale attacks in the U.S. I hope that never happens, because we have made progress in security to some extent, but it only takes one terrorist to create massive carnage.

    Making threats that “if you do this, we’ll do this” doesn’t work with radical Islamics. They either don’t believe we’ll do anything (because so many times we have not), or they don’t care (Iran is fine with their own people “paying the price”). Plus, in that scenario Israel will have already been obliterated (they are first on the list).

  • http://sweatingthroughfog.blogspot.com/ Sweating Through Fog

    We can prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, by massive attacks on their power plants – it takes huge amounts of electricity to enrich uranium. We would have to follow up with attacks on their oil infrastructure to create the sort of internal chaos that will prevent them from hitting back.

    Unfortunately, we lack the domestic consensus necessary to take necessary steps like that. At this point this situation boils down to this: we cannot impose our will on the Mid East without a total war – one directed at both the Saudis and Iranians, and one that involves the siezure of all of their oilfields. We have the power to do that, but not the national focus.

    Regarding Al-Queda in Iraq. Leaving would mean they would be fighting the Shia and the Kurds, and eventually the Iranians then the Turks. They’d be worse off than they are now, because those forces will exterminate them. We have to stop believing that there is one enemy in the Mid east, whether its Al-Queda, the Iranians, the Sauidi’s, Hamas, Hezbolla. They are all enemies.

    I know this will mean the abandonment of the Iraqi people. I wish it weren’t so. But sadly there is no workable alternative, because I see no chance of a democracy there, and no chance of any government that is even neutral towards the US.

    I agree that deterrence is not assured when dealing with religious fanatics. But leaders that are that fanatic won’t be able to discipline themselves to wait until they can deliver a fatal blow. Once again, it is an unfortunate fact that another attack will be needed to clarify the minds of the American people.

    We need to play a longer game. The strategy should be to withdraw from the Mid East, do everything we can to bankrupt them, and prevent all residents of Mid East countries from even visiting the US. There is the real risk of another attack, more serious than 9/11, but I know of no sure way to prevent that.