View Full Version : Iran Rejects Kerry Nuclear Proposal
efuseakay
10-03-2004, 04:40 PM
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6397187
Iran Rejects Kerry Nuclear Proposal
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday rejected a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry who has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability.
Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be "irrational" for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad.
"We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others," Asefi told a weekly news conference.
Washington says Iran plans to use its nuclear facilities to make atom bombs. Tehran says it merely wants to generate electricity from nuclear power.
President Bush wants Iran sent to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear program.
But Kerry says he would put Iran's intentions to the test by agreeing to supply it with nuclear fuel for its power reactors provided Tehran stopped efforts to make its own fuel and returned the spent fuel after use.
Iran has rejected repeated efforts by European countries to get it to scrap its nuclear fuel-cycle activities -- activities which could be used to make atomic bombs.
Asefi said Iran could not trust any deal from the West to supply it with reactor fuel.
"What guarantees are there? Will they supply us one day and then, if they want to, stop supplying us on another day?" he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like Kerry is a failure even before he's elected (not saying he will win)... so, what's next on the Kerry agenda for Iran? A summit?
el scorcho
10-03-2004, 04:58 PM
yep, right after he gathers all the leaders in europe as to whether he should tax the american public more.
as the article states, kerry's policy was used to pick apart what Iran actually wants to use their nuclear facilities for, not as an end it all, be it all solution.
Seems like Kerry is a failure even before he's elected (not saying he will win)... so, what's next on the Kerry agenda for Iran? A summit?Emulation of Jesse Jackson. :friggin: That's the only way he is going to meet world leaders.
efuseakay
10-03-2004, 05:28 PM
yep, right after he gathers all the leaders in europe as to whether he should tax the american public more.
as the article states, kerry's policy was used to pick apart what Iran actually wants to use their nuclear facilities for, not as an end it all, be it all solution.
There were actually doubts about what the intentions of Iran are? That's news to me for sure...
So, what's next in Kerry's plan for Iran?
el scorcho
10-03-2004, 05:29 PM
do i look like his foreign policy advisor?
efuseakay
10-03-2004, 05:29 PM
do i look like his foreign policy advisor?
Actually, by looking at your avatar, you do... ;)
mers2
10-03-2004, 07:12 PM
Looks like Iran is rejecting both Bush and Kerry's proposals. Quite frankly, I don't think they'll take any suggestions, offers, orders, etc. from anyone or anything Amercian or associated with America. Iran is not a Bush or a Kerry failure at this point. The president in the next term, whoever it may be, is going to have quite a problem on their hands. Military action in Iran will be nothing like military action in Iraq.
Cousin Dave
10-03-2004, 07:16 PM
Looks like Iran is rejecting both Bush and Kerry's proposals. Quite frankly, I don't think they'll take any suggestions, offers, orders, etc. from anyone or anything Amercian or associated with America. Iran is not a Bush or a Kerry failure at this point. The president in the next term, whoever it may be, is going to have quite a problem on their hands. Military action in Iran will be nothing like military action in Iraq.The difference is Bush knew Iran would be a problem and Kerry shot his mouth off too soon.:lol:
ethics
10-03-2004, 07:17 PM
Looks like Iran is rejecting both Bush and Kerry's proposals. Quite frankly, I don't think they'll take any suggestions, offers, orders, etc. from anyone or anything Amercian or associated with America. Iran is not a Bush or a Kerry failure at this point. The president in the next term, whoever it may be, is going to have quite a problem on their hands. Military action in Iran will be nothing like military action in Iraq.
Excellent points, all of them.
We need to look at Iran beyond national politics and realize that Iran will not be cordial with US unless Khomeini senior came back from death and ruled US.
el scorcho
10-03-2004, 07:33 PM
Well it depends on which side of the camp you're on I guess. One could reason that Kerry took his time to see what Iran's intentions really were as opposed to just stating outright hostilities from the getgo.
mers2
10-03-2004, 07:39 PM
The difference is Bush knew Iran would be a problem and Kerry shot his mouth off too soon.:lol: Someone else on this board made the statement that if we controlled what nuclear material they got we could control what they used it for. I didn't think it would go over with Tehran. But I haven't seen anything real constructive out of the Bush administration either...
Copzilla
10-03-2004, 08:17 PM
I just find it ironic that Kerry is only a presidential candidate, and already suffered his first diplomatic failure.
The coddling methods he'll use toward terrorist states is ineffective. Always has been. Hellooooo, Jimmy Carter.
One could reason that Kerry took his time to see what Iran's intentions really were as opposed to just stating outright hostilities from the getgo.Or maybe he did so because of what some poll inspired him the most. He is very poll driven in his stances.The coddling methods he'll use toward terrorist states is ineffective. Always has been. Hellooooo, Jimmy Carter.Afghanistan, Iran, Panama Canal. I know there is more but I am weary.
kingdome74
10-03-2004, 11:21 PM
I just find it ironic that Kerry is only a presidential candidate, and already suffered his first diplomatic failure.
Well, actually it would be his third because France and Germany laughed in his face about providing troops to Iraq. 0-3 so far and counting. Pretty soon he'll reach the epic numbers he racked up in trying to pass legislation :lol:
Copzilla
10-03-2004, 11:36 PM
LOL Kingdome, yes, it is his third turd. His foreign policy is off to a blistering start. But he CAN do it better. Ask him. He has a plan.
Someone else on this board made the statement that if we controlled what nuclear material they got we could control what they used it for. I didn't think it would go over with Tehran. But I haven't seen anything real constructive out of the Bush administration either...
That's not precisely true. Controlling what fuel they have just makes it harder for them to produce weapons grade material, it doesn't make it impossible. Of course they would be opposed to anything that makes it harder for them. Kerry wouldn't grow a pair and do anything until long after they had weaponized anything...and even then, he would have to ask France if it was okay.
efuseakay
10-04-2004, 12:23 AM
Looks like Iran is rejecting both Bush and Kerry's proposals. Quite frankly, I don't think they'll take any suggestions, offers, orders, etc. from anyone or anything Amercian or associated with America. Iran is not a Bush or a Kerry failure at this point. The president in the next term, whoever it may be, is going to have quite a problem on their hands. Military action in Iran will be nothing like military action in Iraq.
That's right... No ground troops will be needed for Iran... ;)
There are two interesting things about this. The first is that the Kerry plan tries diplomacy first. This is admirable. Even if it is a failure, it is always worth a shot when that diplomacy doesn't jeopardize our safety.
The second thought I have on this is whether we have given the Iranians any reason not to trust us? I believe we have. A more formidable enemy is one that you both respect and trust to do what they say they will do. I know that is a Bush catch phrase, but it means more than just "Trust we will kick your ass." If our enemy trusts that we will keep our word in everything, they are more likely to negotiate a peaceful solution to our differences. Diplomacy requires keeping the agreements we make. We don't do that very well. Offering to give them the nuclear fuel shows that we are willing to work with them on this, not just tell them what to do. That is a good step towards building up that trust again. If we knew we could be trusted and they rejected our offer, then we could say for sure that have ulterior motives. Given our history in not keeping our word, their argument that they can't rely on us is a valid argument.
kingdome74
10-04-2004, 10:05 AM
There are two interesting things about this. The first is that the Kerry plan tries diplomacy first. This is admirable. Even if it is a failure, it is always worth a shot when that diplomacy doesn't jeopardize our safety.
The second thought I have on this is whether we have given the Iranians any reason not to trust us? I believe we have. A more formidable enemy is one that you both respect and trust to do what they say they will do. I know that is a Bush catch phrase, but it means more than just "Trust we will kick your ass." If our enemy trusts that we will keep our word in everything, they are more likely to negotiate a peaceful solution to our differences. Diplomacy requires keeping the agreements we make. We don't do that very well. Offering to give them the nuclear fuel shows that we are willing to work with them on this, not just tell them what to do. That is a good step towards building up that trust again. If we knew we could be trusted and they rejected our offer, then we could say for sure that have ulterior motives. Given our history in not keeping our word, their argument that they can't rely on us is a valid argument.
Let me see if I have this correct - the Iranians are hellbent to turn Isarel into a smoldering hole by producing illegal nuclear weapons and it's Bush's and America's fault. I'm afraid I don't follow.
MNeedham73
10-04-2004, 10:08 AM
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Kerry's idea for supplying Iran with nuke fuel similiar, if not the same, as what Clinton tried to do with North Korea?
Isn't it the same deal they had with Russia.....and then said screw you?
Steve
10-04-2004, 10:24 AM
wapu, I'm in general agreement that diplomacy should always be the first effort but exactly how long should we play these little games with countries that obviously have no intention of abiding by any commitments?
Diplomacy is great for defusing crises and addressing short-term issues or long-term peaceful issues such as trade. When one of the parties is publicly and blatantly belligerent, though, as with Iraq, North Korea, Iran, etc. then continued diplomacy only affords the belligerents more time for...whatever it is they've been saying they're going to do.
Precisely. Diplomacy is a tool used most effectively between democracies, adversaries who for one reason or another, usually military, have mutual respect for each other or those who truly do not wish ill toward another country.
Saddam's Iraq, Iran and the DPRK do not qualify to be in these categories. The immediate crippling of the nuclear programs and military infrastructure of Iran and DPRK should be under consideration by the United States and her regional allies.
Air power and missile strikes should be the primary instruments used.
efuseakay
10-04-2004, 01:45 PM
You cannot use diplomacy with someone who has no intention of listening to it in the first place.