Wednesday, August 11, 2004

Iran's nukes

This is why feckless negotiation with terrorists and members of the Axis of Evil is like negotiating with a rabid dog:

Iran has issued an extraordinary list of demands to Britain and other European countries, telling them to provide advanced nuclear technology, conventional weapons and a security guarantee against nuclear attack by Israel.

* * *
Iran's move came during crisis talks in Paris this month with senior diplomats from Britain, France and Germany.

The "EU-3" were trying to convince Iranian officials to honour an earlier deal to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment programme, which is ostensibly designed to make fuel for nuclear power stations but could also be used to make fissile material for nuclear bombs.

Iranian officials refused point-blank to comply, saying they had every right under international law to pursue "peaceful" nuclear technology. They then stunned the Europeans by presenting a letter setting out their own demands.

Iran said the EU-3 should support Iran's quest xfor "advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use" - a reference to equipment that has both civilian and military applications.

The Europeans should "remove impediments" preventing Iran from having such technology, and stick to these commitments even if faced with "legal (or) political . . . limitations", an allusion to American pressure or even future international sanctions against Iran.

More astonishingly, Iran said the EU-3 should agree to meet Iran's requirements for conventional weapons and even "provide security assurances" against a nuclear attack on Iran.

In the face of Iran's belligerence, the utopians in the EU: "are still debating over how to respond, but British officials said the Iranian letter was 'extremely surprising, given the delicate state of process.'"

NO, you dopes, it's NOT SURPRISING AT ALL. Anyone with common sense and knowledge of both the type of regime Iran has and its publicly stated intentionsto both become a nuclear power and USE nuclear weapons against Israel knew that Iran would not voluntarily give up its nuclear weapons dreams by negotiation with the EU.

The US allowed this charade to proceed to curry favor with the French and Germans, and to allow Britain to kiss up to those two after the UK supported the US in Iraq. France and Germany want to keep this issue from going to the UN Security Council (where the US wants to impose sanctions) because (1) France and Germany don't actually want to do anything that would damage their relations with Iran; (2) France and Germany want to "prove" that their negotiations work as well or better than US force; (3) France has too many business dealings with Iran to rattle the mullahs' cages. The US should do one of two things: tell Iran it had its chance, now face sanctions (which the French would probably veto) or do what's necessary to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

Ultimately, only one option really remains: taking Iran's nuclear capacity offline by force.

Captain Ed notes how this relates to the US election on two counts:

European dithering will be the death of the West yet, if we allow it.

And remember which candidate has the fetish for European approval in the upcoming presidential election. Casting a vote for John Kerry is an endorsement of this fecklessness. He's made his insistence on Franco-German approval quite clear all campaign long.

No comments: