Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Will Negotiations Resolve Iran's Nuclear Standoff?
The other day, Ahmadinejad sent a letter to President Bush which was immediately dismissed by Secretary of State Rice as a "ploy" to avert further international pressure over Iran's nuclear program.
Today, Ahmadinejad once again reiterated that Iran is ready to engage in a dialogue with "anyone" to settle its nuclear standoff. Hours later, AFP reported that the United States has given its European allies "a couple of weeks" to offer Iran new incentives to halt the country's controversial nuclear program.
The history of international relations in the past half a century shows that hardliners succeed more frequently in breaking long-standing taboos. Examples are frequent: Nixon's historic trip to China, Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement, Qaddafi's recent normalization of ties with the United States, Khomeini's decision to end the Iran-Iraq War in 1988, and so on.
It is much harder to question the commitment or motives of a hardliner than a middle-of-the-roader. Nobody could question Ariel Sharon's commitment to the Jewish cause, or Qaddafi's commitment to the preservation of the Libyan revolutionar ideals. Hardliners, therefore, are always in a stronger position when it comes to breaking long-standing taboos.
Would it, therefore, be too absurd to hope for a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear crisis at a time when hardliners are in power both in Washington and Tehran?
- Assareh
# posted by Berkeley Forum : 2:17 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Obviously those who would lead Iran try to heighten its power so that they themselves would have more power. Of course it is possible that they might be oblivious to how they are endangering their own country, but that might not be your perspective.
Hardliners are addicted to power, and when you have two of them, as you say, it IS very unlikely that either would concede a significant amount of "power," if any at all.
What kind of fresh diplomatic solution would YOU propose?
Iran is justifying its current nuclear energy development by pointing out that it is its right as a country. Don't you think it's possible that it might just change its position that it isn't developing a nuclear weapon...and justify having them because even Israel and India, for example, have them?
Why SHOULDN'T Iran have a weapon anyway? Wouldn't it fear retaliation if it actually used one?
Hardliners are addicted to power, and when you have two of them, as you say, it IS very unlikely that either would concede a significant amount of "power," if any at all.
What kind of fresh diplomatic solution would YOU propose?
Iran is justifying its current nuclear energy development by pointing out that it is its right as a country. Don't you think it's possible that it might just change its position that it isn't developing a nuclear weapon...and justify having them because even Israel and India, for example, have them?
Why SHOULDN'T Iran have a weapon anyway? Wouldn't it fear retaliation if it actually used one?
# posted by 
: 3:33 AM
: 3:33 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4768865.stm
No matter how many juicy carrots the US or the international community dangles in front of Iran, it will not cease what it calls a "peaceful" process of enriching uranium for energy purposes. I have to ask again, why SHOULD they?
Post a Comment
No matter how many juicy carrots the US or the international community dangles in front of Iran, it will not cease what it calls a "peaceful" process of enriching uranium for energy purposes. I have to ask again, why SHOULD they?
# posted by : 3:16 PM
: 3:16 PM<< Home
