The Iran trap

[CHIMO]

In the complicated world of international diplomacy surrounding the issue of Iran's nuclear program, there is but one thing that the United States, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the so-called EU-3 (Germany, France and Great Britain) and Iran can all agree upon:

Iran has resumed operations of facilities designed to convert uranium into a product usable in enrichment processes. From that point forward consensus on just about anything begins to fall apart.

Iran's resumption of its uranium conversion program seems to have brought to an end a negotiating process begun in November 2004 between the EU-3 and Iran, at which time Iran agreed to freeze its uranium enrichment-related activities in exchange for the EU-3's agreement to broker a deal that would provide inducements for Iran to give up its nuclear enrichment program.

The only chance the world has of avoiding a second disastrous US military adventure in the Middle East is for the EU-3 to step back from its policy of doing the bidding of the US, and to confront not only Iran on the matter of its nuclear program, but also the larger issue of American policies of regional transformation that represent the greatest threat to Middle East security and stability today.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1A678E7E-2612-4B21-8D21-04E6D5FC5D54.htm

I appreciate Scott's interpretation of the trap. However, I would ask him to step back a bit from the issue and really consider who is falling into the trap!

I appreciate his insight but I really fear that he is looking at the situation from a position of an American, in this situation.

[RONSTOO]

1. a no-win situation

the only winners in any scenario here are China and Russia. The losers are Israel and the U.S.

[CHIMO]

2. Forget

About Israel.

If one were to be a Kissinger and sitting in Russia or China what do you think the the response would be?

My response would be to strongly object, maybe get a few concessions, and allow the expansion to continue.

It seems to me that the EU has to reconsider how they managed to let the poodle get on the wrong side of the issue.

That being said, it seems pretty clear how things are going to be played out now.

[RONSTOO]

3. ah yes

but what if Israel bombs their facilities without our consent ?

Then what happens?

[CHIMO]

4. Israel

Is a red herring in all this.

If one presumes that a small country can take over the objectives of the most powerful country in our known universe then..

This business with Israel is a red herring. If the US wants certain things to happen then they will cause them to happen. Having Israel to point to only diffuses the issue.

If it helps to point the finger at others then they will keep up that perception.

If Israel is doing something, it ultimately is because the puppeteers are pulling the strings.

Forget about Israel. It is really a non-issue in this situation.

As to your question about "our consent", well that is exactly what my comments on Scott's report was about.

Just put yourself in a Kissinger sitting in Russia or China. How would you hope to bleed your opponent dry?

[yurbud]

8. yep--we do good cop, bad cop with Israel as bad cop

but with Bush it's more like bad cop and Charles Manson, and Bush is Manson.

[countmyvote4real]

5. I think we (*) already fell into the Iran trap via Curveball.

The US has no business in the Middle East other than oil theft. And that's been such a success. NOT.

Israel can pretty much take care of themselves. And they will do whatever they want or need to do regardless of hints or suggestions from any US diplomat.

And yet the US administration is hell-bent on saving their lost pride from the false invasion of Iraq by another invasion. This one might be more justified, but * and company have cried wolf too often to be supported or believed.

Of course there is always the possibility that a corporate agreement could bring peace. HA.

[CHIMO]

6. But

If you look at it from a Chinese or Russian point, anything that would drain the US, would strengthen your position.

If one steps back and considers the consequences of another aggression then it would not be to the advantage of the US. Why does no one see this?

[countmyvote4real]

7. Because every nation in this world does not have to be our enemy.

We could work together or refuse Katrina aid from nations the * administration doesn't like. They refused aid from Canada!

Hello?