Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
And strict oversight with an empowered IAEA would likely prevent it. We'll on what their leadership is willing to pony up to. If they agree to have their uranium converted to medical use as is being discussed you'd think maybe they aren't that eager.
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?
If the point is to prohibit a bomb, and both methods are successful perhaps you should choose the more constructive means.
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.
Who's them? The mullahs? The Iranian people? The Republican Guard?
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.
Seems like the military really has the power and I'd wager their interest is staying in power. If they get an open confrontation with the West they'll lose that power.
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.
The Iranian people appear to have a very positive view of Americans. Perhaps that's who Obama was speaking to when you thought he was talking to himself.
|
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, Obama 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.