Iran

From PhiloWiki

Should we attack Iran?

Yes

• Three Mistakes and a Danger - Barbara Lerner, National Review

"Only America has both the courage and the military might to save these Iranians, along with ourselves and decent people of all religions everywhere, from the new age of barbarism that threatens us all. To do that, we must ignore the Chamberlains among us and rally behind our Churchills, and we must act."

• EU Makes No Headway on Iran Nuke Program - George Jahn, Associated Press

"A confidential summary of talks between key European powers and Iran made available to The Associated Press on Tuesday shows there has been no progress in getting Iran to scrap nuclear enrichment — even though Tehran acknowledged it does not need nuclear energy.

The United States and several other countries fear Iran is seeking to enrich uranium not to the low level needed to generate power but to weapons-grade uranium that forms the core of nuclear warheads.

Iran publicly insists it only seeks to make low-grade enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. But the summary of the last meeting on the issue involving representatives of France, Britain, Germany and Iran says Tehran acknowledged what Washington and its allies have argued all along — that the oil-rich country has no need for nuclear energy.

"Iran recognizes explicitly that its fuel cycle program cannot be justified on economic grounds," the document says.

Diplomats familiar with the talks said on condition of anonymity that the atmosphere between the two sides had improved during the second round held in Geneva on Jan. 17.

But they agreed that no progress was being made on the Europeans' insistence that Iran's present temporary suspension of its enrichment programs be turned into a commitment to permanently mothball all such activities.

"The two positions cannot coexist," said one of the diplomats, from a West European nation. "If the impasse cannot be resolved, then there will be no solution," clearing the path for Iran to resume work on activities that will allow it to enrich uranium, he said.

Another diplomat agreed there was no progress on the core issue but expressed hope that common ground could be found in future rounds. "

No

• ElBaradei Wins - Gordon Prather, Antiwar.com

[E}ven though Iran had the "inalienable right" – as a NPT signatory – to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, Iran announced that – as a further "confidence building measure" – it would temporarily suspend all uranium enrichment and processing activities already planned or under way.

The IAEA was officially notified of this voluntary suspension and invited to verify and monitor it.

The IAEA Board of Governors was officially notified that the voluntary suspension by Iran was not a legal obligation and would be sustained only so long as the EU-Iranian talks continued.

But, President Bush – who wasn't even a party to the "talks" – said that if Iran resumed the activities it had voluntarily suspended, he would take the matter to the Security Council for possible action.

But here is what ElBaradei had to say last week, following his re-election:

"On the positive side, again I have made it clear that Iran has facilitated access to nuclear material and facilities under the Additional Protocol and the Safeguards agreement.

They have also maintained in full the suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, which is again positive.

As you know the EU is supposed to provide comprehensive proposals to Iran by the end of July, beginning of August. I think that's an important, delicate phase of that negotiation. I very much hope that that dialogue will continue.

I was very pleased to see the US today saying that they are also lending their full support to the European dialogue. So, I very much hope that the diplomatic solution to the Iran issue will continue and will yield full results."