[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Oh for Big Bang's sake! IF THEY WANT THE URANIUM CONVERTED FOR WHATEVER PEACEFUL SAKE THAT WOULD BE SOOOOO EASY. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SO EASY FOR A LONG TIME. THEY DON'T HAVE TO THREATEN, OR ACTUALLY ATTEMPT, TO GET THE BOMB IN ORDER TO GET PEACEFUL URANIUM CONVERSION. Geez . . . I mean holy accident . . . what's the mystery?

Perhaps they increased the volume of enriched uranium with the assumption they could bargain it away if need be. Still would retain the knowledge that has duel purpose. Smart move on their part.

Hey, you're the one who asked for a discussion on an alternative approach if a deal can't stop Iran from getting a bomb. You either keep falling back on the deal being some form of alternative approach to itself, or you just can't get yourself to say what an actual alternative approach would be. Just too horrible to say, I guess.

I'm waiting for those who oppose an Obama led deal, one that they are opposing before they know what's in it, to propose something that's actually feasible. Not the same empty rhetoric we got from Bibi on Capital Hill.

I have specifically said several times that its the theocratic leaders (not the people) with whom the negotiations must ultimately be made. Khamenei will put the thumb up or down.

Is the military an autonomous segment of the population, or is it under the control of the theocrats? They certainly wouldn't want to get into a confrontation with the West if they don't have the bomb. Nor do they, at this time, want to go it alone. I have already posted articles and discussion about Iran wanting to join larger alliances with Russia, China, and others who in turn want to oppose the West.

Now you're conflating issues. If the "real Islam" is as you say what ISIS is, and the goal of the Iranian theocrats is to ultimately destroy the west, why on earth would they collaborate with emerging markets who can't grow without a successful western economy?

Perhaps their motives aren't as you describe, perhaps Islam isn't as you describe.

Interesting thing I found earlier but forgot to post.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=124494788

That's why I pointed out that he showed nothing but words to support them when they tried to rise up against their dictators. Yet, on the other hand, they see how he has been actively supporting the overthrow of other dictators. And how the leader of their own "green" movement to overthrow the mullahs called for strict adherence to their constitution, while, for all the world including the Iranian people, he displays contempt for our Constitution. And how he coddles the opponents of our strongest ally in the area while chastising it and trying to scare it into submission. His speech to the Iranian people, or to whoever else it was meant, was still only empty words, backed only by contradiction and unreliability. What was there in his speech that would encourage them to rely on his assistance, or anything else.? They are already under the thumb of their rulers, and his negotiations will not change that, nor can it make their voices any more heard by the mullahs than it already is.

So what should Obama have done during the Green Revolution? Hired Oliver North to arrange an arms deal?

This is a slow lean. There's a demographic change in Iran underway that will demand the authority come up with a new formula. The old mode of resisting Western influence isn't going to work when your younger population happens to love Americans.