Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavesM who wrote (13369)	10/22/2003 6:43:57 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793707

The Wall Street Journal is slightly happier with the Iran deal than I am. I think it is a con on Iran's part from the git-go. ____________________________________________________ REVIEW & OUTLOOK The Mullahs' Promises The Europe-Iran nuke deal buys a little time--but that's far from enough. Wednesday, October 22, 2003 12:01 a.m. Anything that gets an Iranian promise to suspend its program to enrich uranium can't be dismissed out of hand. So on that score at least, yesterday's agreement between Iran and the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany deserves a cheer. But only one. Reading the brief text of the agreement that Iran struck with the "Big Three" foreign ministers in Tehran yesterday, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that what resulted was largely a fudge, with the hard questions left unanswered. The three embarked on the diplomatic mission with only 10 days remaining before an October 31 International Atomic Energy Agency deadline. If Iran fails to comply with the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency's demands by that date (including signing an additional protocol, which was also agreed yesterday), it could be declared in breach of its IAEA obligations and have its violation referred to the U.N. Security Council. Iran had every reason to avoid that declaration. A Security Council referral would prompt Washington to lobby hard for punitive measures, possibly sanctions. Britain, France and Germany have all expressed concern over the IAEA's findings in Iran--including the discovery of a large enrichment plant under construction in Natanz and two samples showing the presence of weapons-grade uranium. In the absence of yesterday's concessions, those countries would have been obligated to support some kind of punitive action, however interested they are for their own reasons in avoiding a confrontation. And yet yesterday's deal may not so much have avoided confrontation as postponed it. The brief agreement does not specify how long the "suspension" of uranium enrichment will last or when it will start or even how it will be verified. It's also not clear how the agreement will affect Iran's new best friend and nuclear supplier, Moscow. Russia has a great deal invested in Iran staying on the right side of the IAEA. There are lucrative contracts selling nuclear technology to defend. And Russia's close relationship with Tehran gives it added leverage that is useful in other negotiations with Washington. Of course, longer term, Russia has no more interest in a nuclear-armed Iran than does the U.S. It would create regional instability (encouraging other states in the neighborhood to acquire their own weapons) and might make Iran bolder in spreading its version of theocracy to other Muslim-dominated areas, including parts of Russia. At the moment, Russia seems to think it can have it both ways, mainly by denying that Iran has any intention to develop nuclear weapons and claiming that nothing Russia is selling it would serve that purpose. But Iran's long resistance to giving up uranium enrichment is highly suggestive of its weapons intentions, whatever Moscow says. The light-water reactors that Russia is helping the mullahs build also produce large amounts of plutonium that could be used to make weapons on very short notice. The obvious concern is that Iran will insist that it is complying with its non-proliferation promises right up to the moment that it is ready to explode a bomb. The main proliferation problem is less nuclear technology than the nature of the regimes that have it. In Iran the danger flows from the mullahs who control the country and want to oust the U.S. from the Middle East. Yesterday's European diplomacy may have bought all sides some time, but no one should be under the illusion that it removes the threat. opinionjournal.com

To: DavesM who wrote (13369)	10/22/2003 9:15:37 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793707

I wondered what the Alabama Governor had done when he lost the vote for a tax raise. John Derbyshire just got back from there, and he tells us the refreshing answer. _________________________________________ Alabama: Governor Riley called a special session of the legislature (this is one of those sensible states where the legislature's normal session is limited to a fixed number of days — two per annum would be fine with me, but Alabama allows 30 days in a 105-day period), and they set about cutting state spending! Private agencies that have been getting state money for years will now get none. "Teacher professional development" boondoggles (i.e. get a Ph.D. while drawing a state salary) have been cut; so has "classroom technology" (i.e. computer games to occupy your kids while the teacher works on his Ph.D. thesis); so have welfare services. Can we get Pataki and Bloomberg down here for some lessons? nationalreview.com