Kerry: U.S. should've given nuclear fuel to Iran

[SteveStromberg]

John Kerry Said:
"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes,"

Gee that will make the world a safer place. I just do not see how anyone could support him.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40734

[needapcar]

jeez what is wrong with this guy? he wants to help iran make nukes then says he is serious about containing nuclear proliferation.

[bryanthompson]

I'm sure in some nuanced flip-flopping way it makes sense to other kool-aid drinkers out there.

Isn't he the same guy that said we shouldn't have gone into iraq, we should have gone to Iran instead? What, go to Iran after we've given them nuclear material? what? That makes sense because... umm... no, it doesn't.. In no way does that make sense.

I predict that after he loses the election, he'll take over for Jimmy carter as the public face of the communist-nation coddling democrat party.

[fintstone]

Yeah, that would work about as well as Clinton's giving advanced ICBM guidance systems to China. They went from being unable to hit the hemisphere they aimed at to being very accurate in less than a year. I wonder where those newly accurate nuclear missiles are pointed?

[jyl]

If you guys are going to debate Kerry's proposal, you might as well start off reading his actual proposal, not a soundbite or some website's report.

From the Kerry website:

"A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region. While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action."

I haven't formed a view on the proposal, but it probably deserves serious thought, not knee-jerk bashing. "Wants to help Iran make nukes" - that's the knee-jerk I am talking about.

The military options for dealing with Iran are kind of limited - since we're stretched so far in Iraq, and still have North Korea to deal with, the Army does not have enough divisions to start a second war.

We'll have to use economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and horse-trading, and it will have to be really effective. After we proved our willingness to pre-emptively invade countries that the President claims are threats, and recalling that the President has named Iran as one of the "Evil Axis", the Iranian hardliners now really want those nuclear weapons (same as the North Koreans).

To be really effective, sanctions and pressure have to be international. Since the US already doesn't do much business with Iran, and have already declared them part of the "Axis of Evil", our sanctions and pressure won't mean much. We'll have to persuade other countries to do most of the sanctioning. In other words, act with the U.N..

Nowadays, our words isn't much good with other countries. After being told off by the President (remember the "I'm getting impatient" comments), misled by Powell (remember the big speech in which he personally assured the U.N. about Iraq's WMD arsenal), and generally disrespected and disregarded (remember the claims that U.N. weapons inspector Blix was a dupe for not finding all those Iraqi WMDs), we don't have a lot of friends.

So the U.S. will to have to be clever, back the Iranians into a corner, and give the U.N. no reason to doubt the Iranian's intentions to build nuclear weapons rather than peaceful nuclear power. Hence Kerry's proposal to call Iran's bluff.

Ultimately, this might not work. We might end up bombing Iran's reactors, like the Israelis did. But we've got to get other countries in the U.N. on our side. Because down the road, we have to deal with North Korea. You can't just bomb them, because they already have nuclear weapons. We'll need all the help we can get.

Sorry to make it so complicated, but that's reality.

[fintstone]

Iran is in the middle of one of the largest oil producing areas of the world and currently does not have any problem meeting energy needs...One doesn't need much imagination to realize why they are so eager to attain weapons grade nuclear materials.

[RoninLB]

a quote from another thread I made erlier.

"Military preemption is at attack on the Left's core beliefs. It's the Dem's consensus party policy of what they believe is right. They will talk inside the UN's Security Council rather than act. Preemption will be an issue again over Iran and N Korea's ++ nuke ambitions. The Left wants to wind down the Iraq situation and move on to the next crisis. Before Regan it was the Rep and Dem "think" to avoid confrontation with the USSR. Regan forced the Rep disconnect with that policy. The Dem's didn't disconnect. The acknowledged Left's policy is to act when attacked.

IMO by the time that happens it'll be to late. "

[bryanthompson]

Originally posted by fintstone
Iran is in the middle of one of the largest oil producing areas of the world and currently does not have any problem meeting energy needs...One doesn't need much imagination to realize why they are so eager to attain weapons grade nuclear materials.

great point!! especiall considering all lefties have been able to do is run around blaming a "lack of imagination" for 9/11 even happening.

We (the good guys) looked at the evidence of Saddam's history and imagined that he'd do it again, or that he supports people that will hurt us. Is that too much imagination? We have tie al Qaeda links, after all. We know he killed tens (hundreds?) of thousands of his own people.

[jyl]

I also think it is fairly obvious why the Iranians want nuclear "fuel", and its not because the electricity is running low. I don't think Kerry (or Bush for that matter) is confused about this.

The question is, what does the US do about it? Do we launch a military attack on Iran? Do we get support from other countries first, by maneuvering Iran into a corner through offers of energy alternatives and demands for nuclear inspection? It matters, because the next problem is N. Korea, and there we don't have a good military option.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by jyl


The question is, what does the US do about it?

Do we launch a military attack on Iran? maneuvering Iran into a corner

It matters, because the next problem is N. Korea,

Hopefully forment a revolution in Iran. Sanctions are historically never productive.

Hopefully forment a sense of responsibility in China to control its adopted brat. That's been the new negotiating game since B2 refused to have NK-US only meetings.

[fintstone]

Maybe we should offer to provide them nuclear fuel as Kerry/Edwards suggest....ala cruise missile.

[jyl]

Originally posted by RoninLB
Hopefully forment a revolution in Iran. Sanctions are historically never productive.

Hopefully forment a sense of responsibility in China to control its adopted brat. That's been the new negotiating game since B2 refused to have NK-US only meetings.

I don't agree on the sanctions. Iraq was squeezed hard enough by a combination of sanctions and inspections that it didn't develop any WMD arsenal, much less nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't have oil or a long porous border with Syria, and might be as vulnerable to such pressure.

I do agree that a revolution in Iran would be even better, but seems like a long shot, doesn't it? Nice to have, but not something you're going to hang your hat on.

Yes, China is going to be key to dealing with North Korea. Which means we'll have to be very conscious of our relationship with China. On the Iran issue, on Taiwan, on US-China trade, etc. The Chinese have a lot of leverage right now, not just because of North Korea but also because of their role in the world economy.