Iran has struck a diplomatic deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency via negotiations with Britain, Germany and France to suspend its uranium enrichment programs.

Diplomatic work apparently a succes for now





The deal has implications toward any intentions the US MAY have in regards to moving against Iran. It removes any 'smoking fuse' which they may be following. And has also been negotiated, in part, by their chief ally Britain. So it makes it harder now to talk up Iran's potential threat. However the article also said this:



Which, on the face of it, makes this look like a win/win deal for everyone.

Taking into account that Iran wants this to be understood as voluntary and non-binding do people think the deal is a positive sign toward stability in the region? Should we trust Iran's committment to suspend its nuclear program and will it help to make possible diplomatic (not military) solutions now and in the future in this region?

Why should we trust Iran when no one can trust us???

If Iran didn't originally have a good excuse for acquiring nuclear weapons, George W. Bush gave the best possible excuse - self defense.

Keep in mind, also, that the United States has a long history of effectively promoting the very hard-line Iranian regimes it claims to detest, from the Shah to the present.

[
At this time I am more concerned with their relationship with Pakistan. This country is one that should be watched more closely and not to be trusted. I really can't get past the Pakistani scientists that were selling nuclear technologies and parts to many rogue nations; pardoned these scientist; let them keep their ill gotten gains; with nary a peep from the USA. This country in one that is known to be home to many terrorist groups including al Qaeda.

Like the USA"s friendship and support of Saddam and Iraq in the past; this relationship, too, will change; but by then Pakistan will be well equipped with modern and nuclear weapons.

The threat to Iran has two sources, the US and Isreal. The United States has the luxury (and desire) to allow the European powers negotiate a deal. Although most US policy makers have no faith in Iranian promises, this is not a problem the current adminsitration wants on its plate at the moment. If Washington didn't have to deal with Iran until 2006 - that would be fine. 2005 is dedicated to building a demonstration project in Iraq concerning a secular republic, and forwarding a Palenstinian - Isreali peace deal that will work.

Isreal on the other hand will not display much if any patience. You can disagree with their view, but it will drive their decisions. They are convinced that if the Iranians are able to minituarize a warhead and build a missble based deployment system - the current Iranian government will use it against them.

If you listen closely, the Iranians have reserved the right to maintain centrifuges necessary for building weapons grade nuclear materials, and an announcement of a planned communications satellite launch to test missle technology. Isreal will not subject their nation to this type of risk. They will take action sooner rather than later, batten down the hatches for the barrage of bad press, and then welcome behind the scenes praise similar to their 1982 strike on Iraq's nuclear facility.

The world will be in an uproar but nobody can or will stop them. To understand Isreal - understand "Never Again"

There in a nutshell is the incentive for Iran to seek nuclear weapons.

But isn't there an odd disjuncture in this whole discussion? The only thing which constrains a country from building nuclear weapons is the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Countries can leave that treaty by giving a relatively brief notice period. Once they do, there is no basis on which you can suggest they have no right to make the weapons, and no other country or institution has any right to prevent them.

The Terrible Sweal, dead on with your comment. It is such a difficult issue to deal with intellectually because how did the US or the UN for that matter gain the right to decide which countries can have nuclear weapons? If you are strong advocate of national soverignty (and I am), then every nation has the right to defend itself.

But now lets get pragmatic. If you know a neighbor is arming to the teeth and its weapons cache has the ability end your family's future forever - do you sit back and wait for the event? The conflcit between the United States and the Soviet Union was one of mutually assured destruction. It sounded MAD but in reality bet on the logic that neither side wanted to meet g*d anytime soon. Today's challenge is what if your opponent wants to die and therefore no real deterent exists.

We are in the unfortunate position of using pragmatism as the guiding philosophy. I only hope that cooler heads prevail because if the US, Isreal, or any other country feels a legimate threat of devastation, they will act first and seek forgiveness later.

By the same 'pragmatism', either the US or the USSR should have attacked the other because each perceived the other as extremist and bent on destroying them.

I would not denying that there is a conundrum IF one state is willing to be destroyed, but I am suggesting that such a willingness doesn't really exist.

I totally disagree. Each side knew that even with a best case scenario for first strike, the other side had the ability to wipe them out. So the strategy guaranteed that if you wanted to live, a first strike made that impossible. Attack by one meant the end of both.

Today's enemy wants to die so how do we hang a sword over their heads?

Try this - what if the United States made a public statement that any attack against the US with non-convention weapons will be responded to with the destruction of Mecca?

What radical would want to meet allah with that on their head?

That final statement simply defies logic. As I've said elsewhere, the number one purpose of all regimes is to maintain their hold on power. This is especially true of despotic or totalitarian regimes such as Iran's or North Korea. Indeed, there's no evidence to indicate that the leaders of these nations have any desire to compromise their grip on power, let alone commit wholesale suicide.

Do you really think the Mullahs of Iran are willing to see Iran destroyed?




I think the world would protest such an outrageous threat against the innocent men, women and children resident in Mecca. I think it would also be disbelieved by most people. Hardly anyone in the world (yet) thinks the U.S. would commit such an atrocity.

The enemy does not want to die. Some of it is willing to die for the cause.

That same willingness would come into play should the USA ever make the statement about destroying Mecca in the circumstances. There would soon be bot a building of note left upright in the US since it would have provided all the justification for preemptive action by every Muslim. Assuming you meant only Muslim attacks.

George Bush, Inc. has already given Muslims every justification for attacking the United States.

As for Israel vs Iraq, I wonder how prepared Iran is for an attack? I mean, they must have learned from their last experience. What secret defenses do they have? How many secret nuclear operations do they have, and how could they be destroyed without a ground invasioni - something Israel is scarcely capable of?

And if the U.S. and/or Israel does attack Iraq, might that push other nations or organizations over the edge? Could Pakistani elements give nuclear weapons to terrorist groups who would be only to happy to end Israel's existence?