No it's not. Not least the idea of going through Russia is ridiculous - they just won back Ukraine, they've restabilized their position over their near abroad in central asia, and we're not exactly giving East Europe the warm fuzzy. The last thing we need to do is give them a greater measure of influence over the success or failure of U.S. foreign policy.Originally Posted by austrianecon
in 1992. Oh. Good. Nothing has happened in 21 years, I'm sure, and I'm equally positive that the IAEA were given full access.Iran needs nuclear power, nuclear medicine and such. It was the plan laid out by the Shah starting in the 1970s. The goal was to build 22 Nuclear power plants by 2000. Iran's civilian power projects were halted until 1980s. Back in 1980s German intel was claiming Iran would have a nuke in 2 years, that never panned out. Iran was getting enriched material for years for scientific research and to help fuel some of the plants finished. IAEA were given full access in 1992. They found nothing.
Does Iran want nuclear energy? You betcha - she desperately needs a solution to her energy vulnerabilities.
Does she also want nuclear weaponry? You betcha - the regime see's that (correctly) as their guarantee that they will never suffer the fate of Mossadegh, and as the way in which they can re-establish old patterns of influence and control in the region.
But there's a problem in the neat oh-we-can-just-let-them-build-nukes-and-trust-them-for-it. Well, a couple of problems. First and foremost is that the next thing that happens is that Saudi Arabia starts a nuke program to counterbalance. I wouldn't put it past Turkey to be not terribly far behind in that event - though Egypt is less likely.
Precisely. We could bicker about the particulars of the Grand Bargain (I tend to suspect it was a very self-serving, short-term alignment to utilize the US to accomplish their own goals in the region, not least of which was the removal of the Taliban and Saddam regimes - basically what you accuse Israel of doing. Another interesting point; you don't bring up the Iranian help with Iraq, just the Israeli effort.), but whatever it was, this is where the Iranian regime is now. They are not going to give up weaponization because that guarantees regime survival - and only if regime survival is threatened will they begin to make offers (as they have).Iran made a huge gesture in 2003 to the US. That anybody in their right mind would have taken and Bush ignored it. Called the "Grand Bargain". Iran was offering the kitchen sink. Everything for stopping support of Hamas, pushing Hezbollah into a political org and accepting the "Two State" solution which all of the US's Middle Eastern allies held and granting 100% access. All Iran wanted was civilian tech and an formal relationship. When that was nixed Iran had only one option after Iraq. That was to try and get their hands on a nuke and was only confirmed as the right answer after North Korea tested and flaunted that premise.
And when they do, those offers will be made by the guy who pretty much wrote the Iranian strategy for utilizing negotiations as a delaying tactic against the West. Who, astonishingly enough, is now President, and is making that offer.
As for the Bush Administration, I've been given to understand that the belief was at the time that Khamenei wasn't supportive of it; which is why they discredited it. but I wasn't there at the time and couldn't provide any supporting evidence for it.
That doesn't appear to be what it looks like. Kerry is out there saying the deal doesn't give Iran the right to enrich, and Iran is saying that it does. Looks like Rouhani is a smart little bastard, and realized that what we had was an administration in trouble, with a desperate need for anything it could wave around as a victory. So Hooray. It looks like we shall have Peace In Our Time.Now, I don't know what Obama and Kerry are playing at. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's close to the Grand Bargain proposed in 2003.