They Will Stop, But They Want It Kept Quiet
Or so goes the story from Bill Gertz at the Washington Times. According to his report Iran will quietly suspend their enrichment, and continue to do so as long as the West is silent on the issue:
Iran is close to an agreement that would include a suspension of uranium enrichment but wants the deal to include a provision that the temporary halt be kept secret, according to Bush administration officials.
Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, has been working with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani on the enrichment-suspension deal that could be completed this week.
Disclosure of talks on the secret element of the arrangement comes as Mr. Solana and Mr. Larijani are set to meet today or tomorrow in Europe when the deal could be completed, said officials opposed to the deal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
According to the officials, the suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran would be for 90 days, so additional talks could be held with several European nations.
Many U.S. officials are opposing the agreement as a further concession to Iran, which continues to defy a United Nations' call for a complete halt to uranium enrichment. A Security Council resolution had given Iran until Aug. 31 to stop its enrichment program or face the imposition of international sanctions. Tehran ignored the deadline, but diplomacy has continued.
Some in the State Department are supporting the deal, which they view as a step toward achieving a complete halt to uranium enrichment.
However, other officials said that keeping any suspension secret would be difficult and that it would drag the United States into further negotiations with Iran.
Iran is seeking to continue talks on its nuclear program while attempting to avoid the imposition of sanctions, something the Bush administration favors but that several other key states, including Russia, oppose.
The United States would then be faced with the difficult position of negotiating against the 90-day deadline, a position that favors Iran.
"The Iranians are very good negotiators," said one official close to the issue.
The officials opposed to the deal want any agreement on uranium suspension to be announced publicly.
Also, any suspension of enrichment would require International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections to verify that work has stopped at Iranian facilities. The inspections would likely be disclosed, exposing any secret arrangement with Iran on suspension.
Failing to publicly announce the suspension also would be a face-saving measure for the Iranian government.
Officials said President Bush is not happy with the secrecy demand, although he continues to support the use of diplomacy to solve the problem.
While this is a nice idea, I do not--for one solitary moment--believe that the Iranians will truly suspend their enrichment programs. I know that the IAEA has to be involved, but we are heading down the cat-and-mouse road, again, with another regime pursuing nuclear weapons.
Some people in the administration--notably the president--is not happy with the agreement, but they are dead set on pursuing diplomacy. And while that is always a good thing, it is definitely not the best course of action. A regime change needs to occur there, but not in the sense that those on the Left will point to. And as for being a "chicken-hawk" we eat chickens for lunch; yum, yum.
The regime change I am referring to is the same one that we have promoted on our site on countless occasions. The dissident movement in Iran is bigger than many understand, and it would have to be the primary source for toppling the current government. I am loathed to say this, but such a change can only be a boon for the region. Iran is the last, large stronghold when it comes to radical Islam. Their support and training of terrorists is well known, and without such a home those animals will have next-to-no protection from a coalition hunting them.
The National Intelligence Estimate, which I covered here, makes it clear that both Iran and Syria are deeply involved in the broader Middle East unrest. As the primary sponsors of terrorism in the region, they are neck deep in the unrest.
And the NIE also stated that CBRN (Chemical Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) weapons are still the focus of many organizations; al-Qaeda among them. We know that al-Qaeda has had contact with the Iraqi regime. Al-Zawahiri has had more than a couple meetings with the mullahs in charge over there. If those meetings and such communication are still intact (which intelligence shows that it is) then the threat of al-Qaeda getting their hands on such weapons is a very real possibility.
And I honestly do not believe them. They will continue to do it; likely at a location the IAEA is unaware of. You cannot trust them, and I do hope the negotiators go in with that thought in the back of their heads. I personally dislike this concession very much.
Marcie
Or so goes the story from Bill Gertz at the Washington Times. According to his report Iran will quietly suspend their enrichment, and continue to do so as long as the West is silent on the issue:
Iran is close to an agreement that would include a suspension of uranium enrichment but wants the deal to include a provision that the temporary halt be kept secret, according to Bush administration officials.
Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, has been working with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani on the enrichment-suspension deal that could be completed this week.
Disclosure of talks on the secret element of the arrangement comes as Mr. Solana and Mr. Larijani are set to meet today or tomorrow in Europe when the deal could be completed, said officials opposed to the deal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
According to the officials, the suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran would be for 90 days, so additional talks could be held with several European nations.
Many U.S. officials are opposing the agreement as a further concession to Iran, which continues to defy a United Nations' call for a complete halt to uranium enrichment. A Security Council resolution had given Iran until Aug. 31 to stop its enrichment program or face the imposition of international sanctions. Tehran ignored the deadline, but diplomacy has continued.
Some in the State Department are supporting the deal, which they view as a step toward achieving a complete halt to uranium enrichment.
However, other officials said that keeping any suspension secret would be difficult and that it would drag the United States into further negotiations with Iran.
Iran is seeking to continue talks on its nuclear program while attempting to avoid the imposition of sanctions, something the Bush administration favors but that several other key states, including Russia, oppose.
The United States would then be faced with the difficult position of negotiating against the 90-day deadline, a position that favors Iran.
"The Iranians are very good negotiators," said one official close to the issue.
The officials opposed to the deal want any agreement on uranium suspension to be announced publicly.
Also, any suspension of enrichment would require International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections to verify that work has stopped at Iranian facilities. The inspections would likely be disclosed, exposing any secret arrangement with Iran on suspension.
Failing to publicly announce the suspension also would be a face-saving measure for the Iranian government.
Officials said President Bush is not happy with the secrecy demand, although he continues to support the use of diplomacy to solve the problem.
While this is a nice idea, I do not--for one solitary moment--believe that the Iranians will truly suspend their enrichment programs. I know that the IAEA has to be involved, but we are heading down the cat-and-mouse road, again, with another regime pursuing nuclear weapons.
Some people in the administration--notably the president--is not happy with the agreement, but they are dead set on pursuing diplomacy. And while that is always a good thing, it is definitely not the best course of action. A regime change needs to occur there, but not in the sense that those on the Left will point to. And as for being a "chicken-hawk" we eat chickens for lunch; yum, yum.
The regime change I am referring to is the same one that we have promoted on our site on countless occasions. The dissident movement in Iran is bigger than many understand, and it would have to be the primary source for toppling the current government. I am loathed to say this, but such a change can only be a boon for the region. Iran is the last, large stronghold when it comes to radical Islam. Their support and training of terrorists is well known, and without such a home those animals will have next-to-no protection from a coalition hunting them.
The National Intelligence Estimate, which I covered here, makes it clear that both Iran and Syria are deeply involved in the broader Middle East unrest. As the primary sponsors of terrorism in the region, they are neck deep in the unrest.
And the NIE also stated that CBRN (Chemical Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) weapons are still the focus of many organizations; al-Qaeda among them. We know that al-Qaeda has had contact with the Iraqi regime. Al-Zawahiri has had more than a couple meetings with the mullahs in charge over there. If those meetings and such communication are still intact (which intelligence shows that it is) then the threat of al-Qaeda getting their hands on such weapons is a very real possibility.
And I honestly do not believe them. They will continue to do it; likely at a location the IAEA is unaware of. You cannot trust them, and I do hope the negotiators go in with that thought in the back of their heads. I personally dislike this concession very much.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home