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: LindyBill who wrote (16874)	11/20/2003 2:45:36 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793672

NYT~~Europe to Oppose U.S. Effort to Air Iran Arms Issue in U.N. By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS November 19, 2003 nytimes.com ONDON, Nov. 18 — Europe will resist an American effort to bring the suspected Iranian development of nuclear weapons before the United Nations Security Council, hoping to lure Iran into compliance with negotiations and incentives, European officials said Tuesday. The stand was a rebuff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who met in Brussels with European foreign ministers and sought a forceful response to a United Nations report that Mr. Powell said proved Iran was defying its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Later, he flew here to London to join President Bush. The Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency is scheduled to take up a resolution this week by France, Germany and Britain that seeks to compel Iran to halt the enrichment and reprocessing of uranium and holds out the lure of future cooperation, including sharing nuclear technology for civilian use. Javier Solana, the top European Union diplomat, said Europe will follow a policy of "constructive engagement" directed at inducing Iran to abandon materials that could be used to produce weapons. European officials agreed Tuesday to demand that Iran sign a nonproliferation clause in any future treaties. Mr. Solana acknowledged that the report, drafted by Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, showed that Iran's past behavior was "not compatible" with its nonproliferation pledge. But he and European colleagues said Iran has shown a new willingness to cooperate. Earlier this week, Mr. Solana said he believed Iranian officials had been honest in their most recent disclosures. Mr. Powell, appearing at a news conference in Brussels on Tuesday, voiced doubts about whether the European approach was strong enough. "We have some reservations about the draft resolution," he said. "The fact of the matter is Iran has been in noncompliance." Later on Tuesday, on the flight to London, he said that the last draft he had seen lacked "trigger mechanisms" to punish Iran for noncompliance. He said Dr. ElBaradei agreed that the resolution was "inadequate to the report he had prepared." Bush administration officials have hewed to a tougher line toward Iran, in the wake of Dr. ElBaradei's report, which concluded that, despite transgressions in the past, there is no evidence that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. John Bolton, an undersecretary of state who is responsible for nonproliferation, declared that conclusion "simply impossible to believe." An American official, who called the report "disappointing," said Tuesday that the administration is still considering bringing the Iranian matter before the Security Council, which has the power to authorize sanctions or military action. The administration has not settled on its strategy, the diplomat said, and it may yield in the short term to the European initiative. That effort, which became public in September, was the first diplomatic undertaking by the European ministers since the divisive battles over the Iraq war. One European diplomat said that some of the ministers were eager to avoid another Iraq-style showdown at the United Nations. The diplomat said there was no appetite for a confrontation with Iran, when diplomacy still might bear fruit. "You will see Europeans united around, `Let's maintain this issue in Vienna,' " the diplomat said, adding that it would "probably create more problems than solve them by taking it to the U.N. Security Council." Mr. Powell and his counterparts also discussed Iraq, and the European envoys expressed satisfaction that the administration has moved up its timetable for handing over control to an interim government. The European diplomats also pressed Mr. Powell on citizens of their countries who are being detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Powell sounded receptive but said that American authorities must make sure that they have fully interrogated inmates before setting them free. "We are trying to resolve these detainee cases as quickly as we can," he said.

To: LindyBill who wrote (16874)	11/21/2003 1:09:42 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793672

If the Israelis hadn't taken out Saddam's Nuke plant, He would be own Kuwait today. And Tel Aviv might not exist. That was an action against a military threat from a hostile state, not against terrorists. Israel’s actions against hostile states, whether preemptive or reactive, have generally been successful, and as a result Israel no longer faces significant threats from hostile states. Israel’s actions against terrorism have, measured by that same yardstick, failed: terrorism directed at Israelis has increased, not declined. The Israelis are much better off because they used force. And their only way out is to continue to use it against anyone who openly says they want to wipe out Israel, and is making a bomb. Again, I was discussing Israel's responses to terrorism, and the questionable utility of emulating them. The nuclear threat to Israel comes from hostile states, not terrorists, and belongs in a different discussion. It is perhaps worth noting that the greatest threat of an Islamic Bomb comes from the possibility of a radical government taking over Pakistan. The Iraq invasion has accelerated the spread of radicalism in Pakistan and diminished the government's already minimal credibility with a populace increasingly inclined toward Islamism. We have inadvertently done a great deal to increase the probability of an established nuclear arsenal falling into Islamist hands. We would certainly be remiss if we allowed Iran to develop one. Certainly. Our options for preventing that from happening, though, are fairly limited. It's worth recalling an old debate. Before the war, we often discussed the impact that an Iraq invasion would have on Iran. Some optimists suggested that the opposition to the mullahs would be strengthened, and their fall hastened. Others suggested that the presence of an immediate external threat would mute opposition and strengthen the radicals. The Iranian opposition does seem to be more than a bit muted lately. The predictions of imminent demise that were flying around a few months back certainly seem to have faded away. I guess we know who was right in that argument. Again.