Wednesday, May 31, 2006

US signifies it will enter direct talks with Iran


Why am I not surprised....Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced today that the United States is ready to join direct talks with Iran - if Iran first suspends its uranium-enrichment activities.

Saying the decision "gives the negotiation track new energy," Rice used this to emphasize President Bush's determination "to do everything we can to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear problem."

The announcement came right before Rice's trip to Europe to work out details of an international approach to Iran.

As outlined by Rice, the new plan calls for the US to join the so-called EU-3 - the European Union countries Britain, France, and Germany - in talks with Iran if Tehran `verifiably' suspends uranium enrichment.

Of course, Iran has already said that suspension of enrichment is off the table. So this means that Iran candemend a high price for compliance...and continue to enrich uranium, work on its missle and nuclear arsenal and build up its military on the sly anyway, just as it has done for the past decade.

My interpetation? Both Bush and the EU are searching for a face saving way of kicking this down the road to a future time. And Iran is looking to buy some more time.

In any event, agreements of convenience between Muslims and non-believers have no great significance for Muslims when it comes to establishing the New Caliphate, Dar Islam. The model is Mohammed's Treaty of Hubidiya, which lasted just long enough for Mohammed to garner the strength to massacre his `peace partners'. Or to put it another way, as the Hadith quotes Mohammed "War is deception."

Will Bush and the West fall for this? Stay tuned.

4 comments:

louielouie said...

one of my theories is: bush is afraid that if he invades iran, after he leaves office he will be charged with war crimes. that president clinton, in an effort to appease the tinfoil crowd, will hand him over to the ICC.
another theory is that he is going to take the FDR approach. wait until iran actually attacks someone before doing anything about this.
as GoV calls this period, from the 1930s, the phony war.
what i can't shake out of my head is the recollection of a rummy interview on one of those sunday morning talking head programs a couple of years ago where he stated that the U.S. is going to have to face that fact that several unfriendly nations will soon have nuclear capabilities. that was indeed plural.

ff, i didn't come to your site earlier because i knew you would write on this. and your comments just soiled my day.

Freedom Fighter said...

Sorry! I calls `em like I sees `em..would you want me any other way?

Actually several `unfriendly' nations ALREADY have nukes. You call Russia, China and Pakistan `friendly'? And the Saudis may have them too. They have purchased ballistic missles from China and our president successfully lobbied to have them exempt from IAEA inspection..just one of a number of things Bush has done for `our eternal friends'.

Look for that 7 figure gift to the Bush library after `08...just like Daddy got.

With all that, I remain optomistic.
Bush realizes the danger of an Iran with nukes, and he may yet grow a pair. He may simply be wanting to appear to have exhausted all diplomatic options before pulling the plug. And I think that our time in Iraq may be rapidly coming to an end, which is also a factor..more on that later.

The key is the midterm elections.My feeling is that Bush, if he's gong to do something, will do it before the midterms or not at all unless we're attacked.

In any event,war is coming and the West will be victorious, of that I have no doubt. The only difference is that the longer we wait, the more dead Americans it will cost.

What I'm more afraid of is a phoney `Munich moment' which simply kicks the can down the road for a couple more years. That would suit the mullahs admirably.

louielouie said...

i agree.

i have often made the imaginary argument:
what if the USA had invaded germany in 1937?
besides the fact that fdr would have been impeached, what significance would utah, omaha, gold & juno have in current day.
my answer is they would be a state, a city, a precious element and a roman god protecting women.
what significance would dec. 7 hold in current day.
it would separate dec. 6 from dec. 8.
by not invading germany in 1937, how many americans did america (kill)?

Freedom Fighter said...

Actually,the US needn't have invaded Germany in `37..all that was necessary was for Britain and France to insist on the observance of the Versailled treaty...or to send a decent regiment into the Rhineland to stop Hitler from occupying it...or to avoid selling Czecholslovakia out..or to tell the germans in no uncertain terms that they would have no commercial relations with the West unless they repealed the Nuremburg Laws and stop their racist persecuton against the Jews...

In fact, they did nothing until it waz too late to stop short of an all out war, which the allies could very easily have lost.