{"id":8739,"date":"2010-12-07T06:54:45","date_gmt":"2010-12-07T14:54:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=8739"},"modified":"2010-12-08T12:45:00","modified_gmt":"2010-12-08T20:45:00","slug":"tuesday-iran-talking-points-17","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2010\/12\/07\/tuesday-iran-talking-points-17\/","title":{"rendered":"Tuesday Iran Talking Points"},"content":{"rendered":"

from LobeLog<\/a>: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for December 7th, 2010:<\/em><\/p>\n

Commentary<\/a><\/em>: J.E. Dyer, writing on Commentary\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Contentions blog, says that talks with Iran are futile and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the current process of negotiation and inspection is worse than irrelevant. It is counterproductive \u00e2\u20ac\u201d because it gives Iran time<\/em>.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Dyer describes Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s announcement that it is producing yellowcake from its uranium-processing facility as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153pulling a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcNorth Korea\u00e2\u20ac\u2122\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and argues that the costs of negotiations have gotten too high. He concludes, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Today the cost includes Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s posting all its biggest weapons-program triumphs after UN sanctions were first imposed. Ultimately, the cost is likely to be much higher.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

The Wall Street Journal<\/a><\/em>: The WSJ<\/em>\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s hawkish editorial board opines that North Korea\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s artillery bombardment of a South Korean island was a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153barbarous\u00e2\u20ac\u009d act and questions China\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s role as Pyongyang\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s \u00e2\u20ac\u0153principal apologist, protector and enabler.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d The editorial board raises the stakes, asking what role North Korea and China had in proliferating nuclear technology to Iran. The Chinese metals and metallurgy company LIMMT, a company sanctioned by the Bush administration for proliferation, is \u00e2\u20ac\u0153perhaps the largest supplier of weapons of mass destruction to Iran,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d according to former Manhattan D.A. Robert Morgenthau in accusations made last year. The Journal\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s editorial board writes that China \u00e2\u20ac\u0153[pledges] good faith in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materiel, especially to Iran,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d but China is a major proliferator of nuclear technologies to both Iran and North Korea.<\/p>\n

Washington Post<\/a><\/em>: Jennifer Rubin writes up a letter by a group of Senators looking to push President Barack Obama to express the view, as an unnamed Senate staffer put it to Rubin, that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153sanctions need to keep ratcheting up.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Written by Sens. Jon Kyl<\/a> (R-AZ), Joe Liberman<\/a> (I-CT), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bob Casey (D-PA), and later signed by Mark Kirk<\/a> (R-IL) and John McCain<\/a> (R-AZ) (as updated by Rubin), the letter says Iran \u00e2\u20ac\u0153cannot be permitted to maintain any enrichment or reprocessing activities on its territory.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcNo enrichment\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 has widely been seen as a (long since violated) Israeli red line, while the U.S. under Obama has mentioned Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s rights to nuclear enrichment as an NPT signatory. Rubin comments: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Like Margaret Thatcher, these senators are warning the president not to go \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcwobbly.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 Let\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s see if he listens.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Commentary<\/a><\/em>: Evelyn Gordon, blogging on Contentions, compares Iran with the Communist government of North Vietnam in the run-up to that war. While the U.S. seeks compromise with Iran now, and sought it with North Vietnam then, Gordon writes, the U.S.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s \u00e2\u20ac\u0153opponents\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 aim is often total victory.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d She writes that with pressure on Iran more out in the open after WikiLeaks disclosures that show strong Arab hostility, Iran is returning to the negotiating table because it \u00e2\u20ac\u0153feels pressured.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \u00e2\u20ac\u0153So Iran, cognizant of the West\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s weakness, has taken out the perfect insurance policy: as long as it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s talking, feeding the West\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s hope for compromise, Western leaders will oppose both new sanctions and military action,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d concludes Gordon. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153And Tehran will be able to continue its march toward victory unimpeded.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for December 7th, 2010: Commentary: J.E. Dyer, writing on Commentary\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Contentions blog, says that talks with Iran are futile and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the current process of negotiation and inspection is worse than irrelevant. It is counterproductive \u00e2\u20ac\u201d because it gives Iran time.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Dyer describes Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s announcement that it […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":75,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-8739","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8739","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/75"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8739"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8739\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8744,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8739\/revisions\/8744"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8739"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8739"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8739"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=8739"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}