05/31/2006 11:47:49 PM EST

Condi to Iran: "Our way or the highway!"

posted by MedfordTim

When is a sincere offer NOT a sincere offer? When is a choice NOT a choice? When is a Diplomatic Overture NOT a Diplomatic Overture?

Well, when it comes from the Rice State Department, just about any time one is made.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
From tonight's Newshour, some quotes:

MARGARET WARNER: So explain very briefly how this would work. The very first step, really, has to be Iran's, is that right?


CONDOLEEZZA RICE: That's right. The Iranians now have a choice. They can say that, yes, they're prepared to suspend and thereby get into negotiations, or they can say that they're not prepared to suspend.

And the suspension requirement is not an American requirement. That was a requirement by the Europeans. It's a requirement in the Board of Governors resolution. It was a requirement in the U.N. Security Council presidential statement.

Now, kids, what's wrong with that statement?

Buzzzzzz. Oops, time's up! Thanks for playing, better luck next time. The answer is:

The "suspension requirement" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether or not diplomatic relations and talks can happen. Don't believe me, read it yourself. That is a choice the Bush administration is making. There is nothing stopping them from participating in talks right now, today, except their own agenda.


MARGARET WARNER: Now, if the Iranians say no, then what?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: If the Iranians say no, then we're going to know that they're not serious about negotiation. We're going to know then that the option before the international community is to go back to the Security Council, where we've been working and we'll continue to work, for resolution and to begin to impose costs on Iran for its bad choice.  

What is it about the word "negotiation" that eludes our Secretary of State? Two choices do not "choices" make. Try saying it with me, Condi, "Give and take. Work with each other. Explore multiple options. Lower the rhetoric. Tell Israel to shut the hell up, they ain't helping. Avoid unnecessary confrontation. Let's talk about it."

Isn't it a bit simplistic to say "Our way or the highway!" Didn't the President own up to it maybe being wrong to use inflammatory pronouncements?

Maybe I'm being too harsh on her. Maybe she really does have a workable, two (or more) way discussion planned between Iran and ourselves. A plan of reasonableness to get things worked out without the threats that seem to be favored by this administration at every turn. Let's take some random quotes, all out of context, I'm sure, so the REAL meaning is lost...

Right...

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
"...because we can't let this continue to drag out..."
"We need to know, and we need to know now."

"...a very clear set of penalties if Iran is not willing to negotiate."

"...it is on the basis of that package (the U.S. "choice"), of course, that negotiations would have to take place."

"...if they don't, then it is incumbent on the international community to go to the Security Council, to get a resolution, and to begin to look at what actions we can take that might make the Iranians make a different choice." (the U.S. "choice")

"...we've been very clear that the president reserves his option for military force."

"...but nothing suggests the president takes military force off the table."

"This is a state sponsor of terror; this is a state whose president speaks about Israel in the most awful ways; this is a country that is causing difficulty in Iraq for the Iraqi people and for our forces; and it's a country that denies the basic rights to its own people."

"...the problems of security in the region are first and foremost caused by Iranian behavior; they're caused by an Iranian regime that cannot recognize the right of Israel to exist; they're caused by an Iranian regime that engages in terrorism; by an Iranian regime that is not transparent in its behavior in Iraq.

That's the problem with security, not an American threat somehow to Iran."

Has she somehow completely missed the non-stop anti-Iranian rhetoric coming from Israel? Quick Google of just the NEWS section for "Iran Israel" brings up 12,800 possibles. How can she not acknowledge that Israel and Palastine are integral parts of the whole process? For crying out loud, don't they understand in Washington that this is not something you can "fix" by focusing on one country? EVERYONE has to be at "the table." If ANYONE should be left out, it's US. We've been a TREMENDOUSLY more destabalizing presence than any other entity.

I wonder why it is that as I'm reading her words, the map of Iraq keeps flashing before me? Am I in a REAL time warp, or is it just that this is the only tune they know how to play?

Uh, Condi? Perhaps you could explain to me, and anyone else who cares, why it is that you are going to attend a meeting with 5 other countries to discuss Iran's "nuclear problem" and yet not have a representative of the IAEA even invited to share in the Reindeer Games?

"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will not send any representative to a meeting of foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany (5+1Group) scheduled to be held in Vienna, Austria on Thursday.
 
"The meeting is to discuss Iran's nuclear case and finalize a package of incentives to be offered to Iran in exchange for suspension of its nuclear activities.
 
"An IAEA press official told IRNA here Wednesday that the agency had no envisioned participation in the meeting of the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council -- Russia, China, Britain, France and the United States -- plus Germany." Islamic Republic News Agency

Hell, it seems to me that this would have been a pretty good meeting to invite IRAN to. This is a little like having a bachelor party without the bachelor or the strippers. Why is there no one at this meeting from, oh, I don't know...the MID-EAST?? Why invite Germany and not Jordan? or Qatar? Or our good friends, the U.A.E.?

Because this is a SHAM. It is an offer that anyone with even a passing knowledge of events knows it is the same thing the U.S. has been saying all along, and that Iran has said, "Why the hell should we?" to time and again.

Condi needs to give a good answer to questions like, "Why the hell should they?" or, "WHY can't we let this 'continue to drag out'?" or, "WHY do 'We need to know, and we need to know now'? What is your damn hurry? Only two years left to get another war going, is that it?

One last quote from the good Dr:

That's why we are talking, not about a grand bargain here, not about the normalization of relations, not about something that somehow legitimizes activities of the Iranian regime that we find abhorrent and dangerous, but rather talks that are aimed at stopping a nuclear weapons program for a regime that is dangerous.

See, we aren't talking about welcoming Iran into the community of nations, oh, no! They will still be in our 'Axis of Evil' and all that, but we will have emasculated them in the very macho world of the Mid-East by making them do our bidding - or ELSE.

Yeah, this oughtta work just fine...

< "Mr. Bush, you're no Harry Truman" | Dems running on the corruption issue >
 Display:
Condi to Iran: "Our way or the highway!" | 25 comments (25 topical, 0 hidden)
Tim is Right (none / 0)
The quotes are undeniable. What kind of negotiation is -- you have to accept our demands before we negotiate?

See, then there wouldn't be a need to negotiate because they just accepted your demands. This is not how people who want peace talk, this is how people dying for war talk.

Cenk

by Cenk on 06/01/2006 02:49:44 AM EST

What kind of talks could they be? (none / 0)
If they agree to stop what kind of talks would be needed isn't that the problem anyway. If you stop enriching uranium we will talk to you about stopping enriching uranium.

i suppose if they agreed to stop then negotiation could be done about inspections and allowing them to continue if we are convinced it is for energy purposes.

I don't know why we think we have that right anyway. When I was in 6th grade there was a bully who had brass knuckles and he would not allow any one else to have them. I don't see the US as a bully but the analogy is pretty similar.

by eeyore1954 on 06/01/2006 05:59:28 AM EST

Untitled (none / 0)
The last thing I need is to watch some American diplomat give a bunch of stuff to oil-rich Iran. Screw it. Let them build their bomb. Let Israel negotiate with the ayatollahs to prevent an atomic war in the Middle East.

How can she not acknowledge that Israel and Palastine are integral parts of the whole process?

I don't think the Persians have much love for Palestinians, they just use them for propaganda purposes. It's much the same with everyone else who says that there can be no peace anywhere in the Middle East until Israel is wiped off the map and replaced with Palestine.

by Twba on 06/01/2006 07:16:44 AM EST

Hmmmm... (none / 0)
"It's much the same with everyone else who says that there can be no peace anywhere in the Middle East until Israel is wiped off the map and replaced with Palestine."

I just barely stopped my knee from jerking. Whew.

So maybe the focus of the U.S. interest could go toward getting some comprehensive proposals which include a clear Palastine, recognition of Israel by those who don't, getting Israel to stop creating unrest with it's neighbors, and if the subject of following United Nations Resolutions comes up, we insist that ALL countries follow ALL the Resolutions, not just the ones we find convenient.

The U.N.'s Charter is to promote PEACE in the world, and Bolton/Rice et al. are trying to make it become an pre-"or else!" agency. It's SUPPOSED to be a 'super debate society.' If people can get their problems aired in front of the world, solutions can be reached. If it takes a year of back and forth, isn't that better than ten years of death and destruction?

History buffs: What are the possible ramifications regarding the Cuban Missle Crisis if there had been no United Nations for Kruschev to bang his shoe at? Come up with your own answer, I know what mine is.

This Unilateral "High Noon" crap has got to STOP!

btw, off-topic, really...Did anyone else hear about the Iraqi Kurds accusing Turkish forces of shelling them? No? And are they telling the truth? Okay, I lied. It is on-topic. This is something the Secretary of State ought to be involved in, since WE are responsible for the Kurds "liberation," and the Turks are our "allies," the new Iraqi government isn't yet in a position to tackle the problem, and it's another sore spot with Iran. Why aren't we hearing about an American effort to try and get these things worked out before the bullets start flying in every direction? Where is John Bolton when it comes time to work things out instead of lobbing ultimatums. Who will he threaten this time? Turkey? The Kurds? Gee, I wonder...

But that's just my simple minded view of how it oughta be.


*******************
Turkey shelled Iraqi area -ruling Kurdistan party - Reuters
Baydemir faces second charge in as many days - Turkish Daily News
Independence still a Kurdish priority - Asia Times

A Turkish perspective: "Iran-US Issue" by Ali Bulac 
"One way or the other, the West, the US in particular, does not want Iran or any other Muslim country to possess nuclear weapons or nuclear energy. In other words, the West aims at monopolizing not only nuclear weapons but also nuclear energy....“We, as Turkey, are conducting nuclear studies at the moment in order to take part in the competition in this industry. We are concerned that they will raise similar question marks over our intentions.” This is very interesting."

by MedfordTim on 06/01/2006 09:11:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
JerkKnee response (none / 0)
I just barely stopped my knee from jerking. Whew.

I stopped my jerk from kneeing.

So maybe the focus of the U.S. interest could go toward getting some comprehensive proposals...

Proposals have been made for decades. It's time to turn our backs and let them figure out what to do on their own.

by Twba on 06/02/2006 10:32:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
An update on "Israel wiping" comments (none / 0)
From "If Iran is ready to talk, the US must do so unconditionally - It is absurd to demand that Tehran should have made concessions before sitting down with the Americans" in The Guardian Bolds are mine.

Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president. Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map".
 
Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.
 

He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.
 

But the propaganda damage was done, and western hawks bracket the Iranian president with Hitler as though he wants to exterminate Jews. At the recent annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobby group, huge screens switched between pictures of Ahmadinejad making the false "wiping off the map" statement and a ranting Hitler.


by MedfordTim on 06/02/2006 08:34:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Israeli wipers (none / 0)
But the propaganda damage was done, and western hawks bracket the Iranian president with Hitler as though he wants to exterminate Jews.

That's not what I meant either. Wiping Israel off the map means replacing it with Palestine and sharia law not Nazi death camps. I'm surprised Trey didn't jump out of the woodwork and remind me that Israel is God's little chunk of dirt, it says so right here in the Bible (chapter:verse) and you can take that to the bank because it's the inerrant word of God. The Israelis are losing the race to be fruitful and multiply. The Palestinian birthrate is going to win the fight. I don't think negotiations matter at this point since the Palestinians already know that their numbers will overwhelm in the end. They can turn down every offer and wait to inherit the whole shebang.

by Twba on 06/03/2006 09:11:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"That's not what I meant either." (none / 0)
Clarification noted. :-)

by MedfordTim on 06/03/2006 09:35:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Clarification was needed (none / 0)
I just scrolled up and read my first comment on this thread. I should have spent a little time coming up with a few more sentences to avoid confusing any readers. I'm assuming a few people read stuff on this site.

by Twba on 06/03/2006 10:03:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Forever war (none / 0)
Claiming that the Holocaust was the principal reason why Palestine was occupied while Israel was the main cause of crises and catastrophe in the Middle East. "So long as Israel exists in the region there will never be peace and security in the Middle East," [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's advisor Mohammad Ali Ramin] said adding, "So the resolution of the Holocaust issue will end in the destruction of Israel." [Link]

by Twba on 06/18/2006 11:12:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"As Seen On TYTV!!" (none / 0)
Thanks, Cenk.

by MedfordTim on 06/01/2006 08:09:49 PM EST

Tunnel Vision (none / 0)
In true left wing style you all seem to overlook the obvious accomplishments and look for something to criticize.  This was an agreed upon approach by the big 6.  That is called diplomacy and frankly I find it to be a coup by Condi.  A major concession was also already given up by the US by changing a 25 year policy of no direct communication being offered up.

For God's sake this is how negotiations begin.  When selling a house you don't offer your lowest price first...you see what you can get.

I can see that you guys have missed my influence to keep you all from succumbing to group think!

(Oh and hello again all)  :)

by Jimmydunk on 06/02/2006 01:58:34 PM EST

Welcome, oh voice from the past! (none / 0)
Still completely wrong, i see! poke

List an accomplishment. Especially the "obvious" ones, 'cause my rose tinted glasses are blinding me to them.


"Diplomacy" is not "Ultimatums." When a parent is negotiating with a kid, do you think it would be useful to spank them first, and then start a dialogue? Do you start off business negotiations with a list of demands the client must agree to (to their detriment only) before you meet with them and try to sell them something?

"A major concession was also already given up by the US by changing a 25 year policy of no direct communication being offered up."

Says you. Trouble is, that is NOT what is being offered. Every single one of Condi's statements refer to "we will join with the other parties," not direct communication. That would be more sensible than this administration is capable of. They would rather throw inflammatory rhetoric out, and stand ready to back Israel militarily when that rhetoric war comes to fruition. And it is NO CONCESSION when you attach strings that you know ahead of time will be rejected.


To use your own analogy, you don't price a $100,000 house in the 28.5 Million category if you are serious about selling it.

Please, for the sake of all of our collective sanities...don't ever use the words "coup" and "Condi" in the same sentence again, I'm beggin' ya! It's too close to what is really happening...

Hope the family is well and the time away gave you a chance to recharge.

by MedfordTim on 06/02/2006 04:15:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Glad nothing has changed...:) (none / 0)
This is not an ultimatum.  An ultimatum is...stop enriching uranium by Friday or we nuke you.  Suspend enriching uranium so we can talk, or if not were going to have a serious discussion about possibly some unnamed negative things...is not much of an ultimatum.

You see no positive in gaining a consensus between the european powers, Russia, China, and the US on this issue?  I think even the most pessimistic would see that as a huge step.

You all bitch and moan and wail about unilateral behavior, and then when we behave in consensus on a difficult issue, it goes unrecognized.  You can't have it both ways. 


To me if she said, "give us all your children under age 5, and we'll talk to you" it would be analogous to pricing a 100k home in the 28.5 million range.  I hardy think that requesting suspension of enrichment is unreasonable especially when Russia, China and the others join in on the request.


Nice to jump in.  The family is great.  The new site freaked me out a bit.  The turks are moving up.  Glad to see you are still holding the fort.  I see the old scoreboard and hence my 3rd place ranking is gone.  Hope the budget is holding up and that these awesome unemployment numbers have you seeing the light!  :)

by Jimmydunk on 06/02/2006 04:51:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm too damn old and cranky to change! (none / 0)
What is it that you think Condi has done that is any different than has already been talked about? There is nothing new about any of this. China and Russia have always been anti-Iran enrichment programs, but they have been and are still opposed to heavy sanctions or military solutions, and there has been NOTHING agreed to that changes any of that. The only thing they agreed to was "the package" presented to Iran, not the consequences.

The other 5 countries were already talking amongst themselves - Condi didn't make this happen, if anything, she is coming to the table LATE.

What would the U.S.A.'s reaction be if ANY nation told us to stop our enrichment programs? Remember, WE are the only country to actually USE a nuclear bomb, WE are the only country this century to have invaded a sovereign country which did absolutely nothing to us. Why SHOULDN'T Iran tell us to go to hell?

Which their Pres reiterated today:

Ahmadinejad: Iran will proceed with civil nuclear program

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday that Iran will proceed with its civil nuclear program in accordance with rules set by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog.

Ahmadinejad was quoted by the PARS news agency as saying that pressure by western nations on Iran to give up its right to nuclear power will bear no fruits.

Keep in mind, Iran is perfectly within it's legal right as a nation to have the program. The United States has NO right to make the demands that it is making.

As the IAEA reported in March:

As indicated to the Board in November 2004, and again in September 2005, all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for. Although the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. The process of drawing such a conclusion, under normal circumstances, is a time consuming process even with an Additional Protocol in force. In the case of Iran, this conclusion can be expected to take even longer in light of the undeclared nature of Iran’s past nuclear programme, and in particular because of the inadequacy of information available on its centrifuge enrichment programme, the existence of a generic document related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components, and the lack of clarification about the role of the military in Iran’s nuclear programme, including, as mentioned above, about recent information available to the Agency concerning alleged weapon studies that could involve nuclear material.

It is regrettable, and a matter of concern, that the above uncertainties related to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme have not been clarified after three years of intensive Agency verification. In order to clarify these uncertainties, Iran’s full transparency is still essential. Without full transparency that extends beyond the formal legal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol — transparency that could only be achieved through Iran’s active cooperation — the Agency’s ability to reconstruct the history of Iran’s past programme and to verify the correctness and completeness of the statements made by Iran, particularly with regard to its centrifuge enrichment programme, will be limited, and questions about the past and current direction of Iran’s nuclear programme will continue to be raised. Such transparency should primarily include access to, and cooperation by, relevant individuals; access to documentation related to procurement and dual use equipment; and access to certain military owned workshops and R&D locations that the Agency may need to visit in the future as part of its investigation.

Since the Bush administration likes to filter the stuff that comes out of the IAEA, to the point of reaching conclusions not supported by facts (see: IRAQ), I thought you might like the link to their Iran page

Here is an excerpt from a John Bolton interview, showing him in top diplomatic stature, as seen on Cavuto's show:

BOLTON: And I think when the President says it’s unacceptable, I think what he means by that is that it’s unacceptable. So it’s important…

CAVUTO: But unacceptable means that if it keeps going on you’re going to do something about it…
BOLTON: That no option is taken off the table. And Secretary…
CAVUTO: Military as well?
BOLTON: Exactly. Secretary Rice…
CAVUTO: Unilateral military action?
BOLTON: Secretary Rice made that point again today. But that’s why I think…
CAVUTO: That we would, I’m sorry Ambassador, that we would act alone if we had to?
BOLTON: That’s why he says no option is taken off the table. But it’s also why he has, the President, has reached out President Putin and other leaders in the past couple of days to say, “We’re making a significant step here,” that will be criticized by many of the president’s staunchest supporters here at home. But he’s taking this step to show strength and American leadership and to say he’s willing to do something that may be unpopular even with some of his supporters, to remove all excuses from Iran and its supporters to say, “We went the extra mile. We gave Iran really, this last chance to show that they are serious when they say they don’t want nuclear weapons.” This is put or shut up time for Iran.

I'll end this longer-than-intended reply with the BBC. They have a terrific analysis of the week's events and included in it is a possible scenario that I truly believe is the operative one for the Bushies:

In the malign scenario, the hawks in Washington have gone along with the move in the belief that an offer of direct talks now will improve their arguments for military action later. It also helps to keep Russia and China on board.
The hawks think this initiative will lead nowhere because Iran will not negotiate seriously even if it agrees to talks - and when it all breaks down, they will have been shown to have gone the extra mile.
  They would then press for a mandatory Security Council resolution ordering Iran to suspend enrichment and then, if Russia and China blocked sanctions, they would call for unilateral measures by the US and its allies.

If that failed, then eventually there would be discussion of a military strike.



Isn't it odd that the BBC chose the same words that John Bolton did?

It's a SHAM. A CON JOB. Just like the build up to Iraq.


***************

You retired third place, DA kicked complete ass. The light I see is still dim, but that's because it's still two years away. What do you think of these ever-climbing foreclosure rates that fail to make the news? The jobs numbers are good, if incomplete.

by MedfordTim on 06/02/2006 08:14:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
cmon cmon cmon (none / 0)
"What is it that you think Condi has done that is any different than has already been talked about? There is nothing new about any of this. China and Russia have always been anti-Iran enrichment programs, but they have been and are still opposed to heavy sanctions or military solutions, and there has been NOTHING agreed to that changes any of that. The only thing they agreed to was "the package" presented to Iran, not the consequences."

For an administration that has behaved unilaterally and been roundly criticized by democrats for doing so, I am still finding it comical that the criticism flows just as heartily when joining a diverse and difficult to corral group of nations in a joint effort.  The process starts with agreeing on a package.  If rejected then the discussion begins on consequences.  It remains to be seen if we stay with the group, but I would say starting with the group is a great first step.

Regarding your hypothetical it is just that.  A hypothetical.  Besides that isn't it a rather meaningless hypothetical?  I think it is fair to say that prior to any meaningful military action any administration wants to appear that it has tried to do things to avoid it.  Hardly a crystal ball you've got there.


Truth...the results of this remain to be seen, but being critical of this starting point is odd given that it is precisely where the Iraq criticism says it is where we should have been.  (International unananimity)

by Jimmydunk on 06/06/2006 10:58:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Talking is good... (none / 0)
I LOVE the fact that the U.S. has finally decided to join the party, what I can't stand is all this bullshit that it's as a result of Condi Rice's manipulations. SHE is joining with the OTHERS. And if I was a member of ANY of the other parties, I would take her word with a heavy grain of salt. She is, after all, a know pathological liar.

We'll see...

by MedfordTim on 06/06/2006 06:01:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Who knows... (none / 0)
what it was due to.  I don't mean she manipulated the other countries into our way of thinking or something like that.  I meant more that for an administration that historically has refused to compromise regardless of other opinions, I see it as as a major step that we appear to have doen just that in interest of international consensus.  So far. 

"SHE is joining with the OTHERS."

And lets recognize that she is not just joining.  A pachage of incentives had to be agreed upon which it appears we have no small role in.  I just think it is disingenuous to criticize this first step.


Like it or not, agreeing with Russia, China, and the EU on anything is no small step.  On this...it is big.

by Jimmydunk on 06/07/2006 08:07:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hope you see this (none / 0)
China, Russia refuse to join Iran sanctions statement

China and Russia refused to join with other world powers in a statement that would threaten sanctions over Iran's nuclear program, during diplomatic jostling at the UN nuclear watchdog.
 
In a further blow to US efforts to present a united front at a meeting here of the         International Atomic Energy Agency, non-aligned nations were preparing a text reaffirming Tehran's right to enrich uranium.

Diplomats played down the significance of the cracks, however, saying member states on the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors would try not to hinder an international offer to Iran of benefits if it reins in its nuclear ambitions.

"Everybody feels they want this package (of benefits) to have every possible chance of success," a Western diplomat told AFP.

China and Russia -- both Iranian allies and trading partners -- had joined Britain, France, Germany and the United States on June 1 in urging Iran to halt enrichment and join talks offering trade and other benefits in return for it guaranteeing not to make nuclear arms.

The offer threatened UN Security Council action, including sanctions, if Iran failed to comply.

A second Western diplomat said the United States had been seeking a new statement in Vienna from the six world powers calling on Iran to accept the June 1 offer and setting out both possible benefits and sanctions for Iran.

But Russia and China were reluctant to sign up this time.

Russia and China "didn't want a reference to sanctions or punitive actions" in such a statement at the IAEA, the diplomat said.

A senior European diplomat said the failure to agree on a joint statement at the IAEA board was no surprise.

The six world powers have never managed to get a united statement on the matter at the IAEA, which oversees cooperation by nations with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and set off the current crisis when it in February cited Iran for NPT safeguards violations, the European diplomat said.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discussed Iran on Tuesday with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing by telephone, a Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman said in Beijing.

"China will continue to play a constructive role to help peacefully solve the Iran nuclear issue through negotiations," the Chinese spokesman said on the ministry's Internet site.

A vigorous debate on Iran but no resolution is expected at this week's meeting IAEA governing board meeting, with the Iranian issue due to come up officially Thursday or Friday during the week-long meeting.

The EU-3, which have spearheaded negotiations with Iran, are expected to issue a joint statement of their own. Each of the six powers engaged with the Iran nuclear crisis will also issue individual statements.

Iran is examining the major powers' offer of benefits and is expected to respond by the end of the month.

Iranian MP Kazem Jalali said in Tehran Tuesday that Iran would not suspend uranium enrichment -- a key precondition set by the major powers for talks -- and was only willing to negotiate on the modalities of the sensitive work, which makes nuclear reactor fuel but also atom bomb material.

A Western diplomat said the IAEA meeting had "no influence on the overall situation," although this diplomat and others admitted that Iran would try to exploit any division, perceived or real, among the world powers.

Delegates from several non-aligned nations, of which China is a member, were nevertheless preparing a statement that supported Iran's right to enrichment, as enshrined in the NPT, diplomats said.

A non-aligned diplomat said his group would "hold to a statement made by non-aligned foreign ministers in Kuala Lumpur in May," that backs Iran's right to enrich.

Diplomats said Washington was fighting to prevent non-aligned states on the IAEA board from issuing such a statement as the United States wants to keep up pressure on Iran.

But many non-aligned states aspire to nuclear technology and are as much concerned about protecting their right to enrich uranium as Iran's, diplomats said.

The non-aligned diplomat said the bloc was planning a statement that would renew a message first issued May 30 in Malaysia, when the the Non Aligned Movement affirmed the right to atomic energy and opposed any attack on nuclear facilities.

The United States wanted the bloc, which numbers some 16 mostly developing nations on the IAEA board, to stick to the February IAEA resolution that many of the non-aligneds had supported and which had called on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.

by MedfordTim on 06/15/2006 01:44:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Exactly my point (none / 0)
You can read this and with straight face tell me that Condi did nothing worth noting in getting consensus on the June 1 offer and statement?

It's like herding cats.

by Jimmydunk on 06/16/2006 08:49:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Interesting group, interesting study (none / 0)
I certainly don't agree with the basis which leads to many of their conclusions, but it is a different view from the norm and worth contemplating implications.

Much as this is...

Requiem for the Faith-based Greenback (This is a link to the full article)

Some interesting snippets:

The great dollar sell-off has begun in earnest, although to a large extent, it is being concealed from the public.     
  

Wary currency traders have been expecting a dollar-slide for months but were nervous about the possibility of widespread panic. Everyone from Bill Gates to Paul Volcker has predicted that the current trade deficit of $800 billion (7% of GDP) would inevitably produce a weaker dollar, so it is only natural that China, Japan and other foreign lenders would begin to cut back on their purchases. The danger to the United States, however, remains extreme. If the transition doesn’t go smoothly, it could precipitate a run on the dollar and trigger economic pandemonium.  No one wants to see the world’s economic powerhouse pirouetting through the ether in flames. By the same token, no one wants to be the last man holding onto stockpiles of scrip that are diminishing in value....

  This means that China and Japan have begun to reduce their purchases of US Treasuries but, surprisingly, some mysterious third party has begun to pick up the slack.

  

   Who is crazy enough to increase their dollar-holdings when most analysts are predicting a loss in value?


    &nb sp;  Apparently, the Bush administration (along with the Federal Reserve) is purchasing its own debt (Treasuries) to control the rate at which the dollar declines. It’s a good strategy, but it can’t last forever.

    

   If the dollar began a sudden nosedive, central banks around the world would quickly ditch their stockpiles and ignite a global-economic firestorm. By purchasing its own debt, the US hopes to engineer a “soft landing” while maintaining its status as the world’s “reserve currency”.

  

   As the world’s reserve currency, the Fed can simply print money which the rest of the world accepts as payment for its manufactured goods and resources. It’s  the slickest deal on earth. As one admiring currency-trader said, “It’s like having a mint in your own backyard.” 

Even if the administration’s plans in the Middle East succeed, there are stormy times ahead for the greenback. The United States has reached an unsustainable level of debt in government, business and personal finances. Personal savings are down, mortgage payments are up, and credit card debt is higher than ever. The entire country is mired in swamp of red ink for which there is no easy remedy.
   James Shepherd, President of JAS MTS Inc. puts it this way:

    “A perfect storm is developing and much of this danger has to do with debt. …When a saturation point of debt and leverage is reached, even a minor dislocation can cause a dramatic collapse….Debtors are always punished more severely in a declining economy because, as activity subsides, they are less able to service their debt and the value of the assets that have collateralized are also falling. Once those that own real estate realize that their neighbors cannot service their mortgages and are forced to sell at almost any price, thereby driving down the perceived value of their own property, the conditions necessary for a full-fledged debt-driven meltdown will be in place… a severe recession - is about to sweep over the landscape and blow away those who are not prepared.”

    The predictions of Warren Buffett, Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, are equally sobering:

    “There are deep-rooted structural problems that will cause America to continue to run a huge current-account deficit unless trade policies either change materially or the dollar declines by a degree that could prove unsettling to financial markets. Indeed, without policy changes, currency markets could become disorderly and generate spill-over effects, both political and financial.” (Quotes form Dudley Baker, “Ominous Warnings and Dire Predictions of World’s Financial Experts”)


What do you guys think? How many people aren't in debt more than four paychecks out (include any mortgages)?



by MedfordTim on 06/04/2006 02:10:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Dollars and sense (none / 0)
This means that China and Japan have begun to reduce their purchases of US Treasuries...

Toyota just used a huge stack of dollars to buy a truck manufacturing plant in Texas. Chinese companies will be sure to follow.

The United States has reached an unsustainable level of debt in government...

The U.S. government has a debt that is 65% of Gross Domestic Product. Is that out of line with other nations? France's debt is 67% of GDP. Germany's debt is 68% of GDP. Italy's debt is 107% of GDP. Japan's debt is 170% of GDP. If the U.S. has reached an unsustainable level, what's up with France, Germany, Italy and especially Japan?

by Twba on 06/04/2006 10:50:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
National debt is only small part of problem (none / 0)
Heartening indeed that so many liberals are developing a newfound concern for the national debt. Does this mean they are interested in taking a David Stockman brand meat-axe to federal spending?

If you think the national debt is bad, check out the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security.

by Twba on 06/05/2006 07:41:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
U.S. "Diplomacy" : Rummy SPEAKS! (none / 0)
Pentagon chief brands Iran as leading terrorist nation, yet hopes Tehran takes diplomatic carrot (This is a link - the rest of the bolds are my highlights.)

SINGAPORE (AP) U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld branded Iran as the world's leading terrorist nation yet hoped Tehran seriously would consider incentives from the West in exchange for suspending suspect nuclear activities...

Iraq was on Rumsfeld's mind, too, as he expressed concern the war could alienate Muslims in Southeast Asia. Upcoming stops on his trip include Indonesia and Vietnam...

Iran's president told U.N. chief Kofi Annan on Saturday that a breakthrough in negotiations over the nuclear program was possible and that he welcomed unconditional talks with all parties...
 
On other topics, Rumsfeld:

warned that although security cooperation among nations in Southeast Asia is expanding, it could be set back if China, Russia and North Korea do not become more open and less threatening.

**************
There's more at the link.

Now, how does Rummy figure that there is more terrorist activity going on in Iran than there is in, say, IRAQ?? Or AFGHANISTAN?? When was the voting on who was #1? Who were the other contestants? Was there a poll in US Weekly? Was Simon a Judge? Donald is soooo fickle...last week it was Zarqawi, this week it's Iran, next week it'll be back to Venezuela.

.......
...he's concerned the war could alienate Muslims in Southeast Asia???

NOW he thinks of that??? WTF?? 

Okay, Iran made a sensible counter-proposal, "unconditional talks," let's see how rational and rhetoric free the responses from the Bushies will be...

Could someone point out exactly WHO Russia, China, and North Korea have invaded in the last 5 years, which would give rationale (possibly) for requesting they be "less threatening." Let's see, which countries are building walls to keep others out? Not China, they've been there - done that. I guess the only one doing that are Israel and the U.S. (if the House prevails)

We've rattled our sabres at:
Iran
Syria
Cuba
Venezuela
Bolivia
North Korea
Belarus
Peru
El Salvador
Haiti

...and that's just this year.

Rummy, who was in charge of the Agency who sent undercover spies into Peace groups, helped lie us into an illegal war, has damn near caused a mutiny in the ranks, rationalizes a need for torture - this is the asshole telling China and Russia to be more open and less threatening??

We didn't get it on tape, but we're pretty sure we overheard Rummy in the elevator saying, "Well, by gum, jumping jehosaphat and land a 'goshen, that's the silliest thing I've ever heard, by golly. Gee whiz, how could anyone misconstrue the misconception into a conceptual miscarriage of misinformation, for crying out loud? Do I have any reason to come on so harsh? Of course not! Do I sound like a war hawk moron when I say such things? Sure. You betcha. But, gee whillikers! Fannie Mae! 23 Skidoo! SOMEBODY has to be straightforward with the troops! ...and that wasn't me who cut the silent but deadly, no siree!"

by MedfordTim on 06/04/2006 01:39:38 AM EST

Now THAT was FUNNY!! (none / 0)
laughing

by MedfordTim on 06/04/2006 11:12:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Condi to Iran: "Our way or the highway!" | 25 comments (25 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: