The EU and Iran: Diplomacy was a better option?

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
That's why I say if, because to me it seems as if it's very probable that the US could be knocked off it's pedestal pretty soon.
Hopefully that clears a bit up.

phoenixhasrisin, yes, that was explained enough.
Thank you sir for expanding more on what you had mentioned.




seekerof

xmotex

With Russia and China on the UN Security Council, I doubt going to the UN is going to accomplish much either.

Correct, xmotex. My thinking, as well.
Both the Russians and Chinese have huge business ventures and further aspirations with and in Iran. Despite China's decrease usage in oil, they are still among the top nations in oil consumptions. Iranian oil is a must for the Chinese. Furthermore, the Chinese have been seeking oil from Russia, as well. The Russians are major arms suppliers to both Iran and China. All three nations are super-laced together, so to speak. I do agree, both Russia and China will veto unless the UN, Europe, and the US offer decent political and economic considerations to both to gain their votes.

The US might choose to use force unilaterally, but it seems likely the Iranians would try to retaliate in some way, and this might ignite a larger conflict than the US intends.

I am not convinced that the US will take unilateral military actions against Iran. Basically the US has taken a backseat to the EU and the UN on this matter. The US may publically say such and such, but in essence, the US has placed firm control of anything aimed at Iran in the hands of the EU and the UN Security Council. The US backseat maneuvering iin the shadow of the EU and UN is because of obvious/self-evident reasons.

Really I think the Iranians are likely to get the bomb eventually, as long as they're convinced they need them.

That has been their [ie: Iran] aim and goal for quite some time, despite them and distractors citing otherwise [ie: for peaceful intentions].

I think the US's veiled threats are having the opposite effect from what is intended: instead of convincing Iran it's an unwise option to develop nukes, we're convincing them we intend to attack them anyway, so they'd better get them ready ASAP.

That may be true, but on the other hand, if a child has full intentions of getting a cookie out that cookie jar, other than hiding that cookie jar, the child will get to that cookie jar to retrieve a cookie. In essence, the Iranians are so deadset and determined to obtain a 'homemade' nuclear device, that despite the US, EU, and evenatual UN veiled threats and actual seen actions [ie: sanctions, etc], the Iranians will not be thwarted from their intended goal(s). That is one reason why the EU economic and political considerations were not seen as acceptable or taken by Iran.





seekerof

[edit on 24-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by rstrik
Could it possibly be that the reason they aren't accepting proposals or negotiating is because they plan on making a nuclear weapon just possibly? Iran sits on one of the largest energy reserves in the world and they decide to spend billions on nuclear energy? Give me a break. I for one hope the US does nothing against Iran or even talks with the regime. We have no crediblity since the Iraq situation. Maybe once Iran is pointing nukes at Europe people will realize these arab dictatorships aren't the wholesome nice people everybody seems to think they are these days. OH! but isn't Iran on the Human Rights commission for the UN? So that means they have peaceful purposes nevermind.

As you might know, oil is already in short supply and soon none will be left.
It would be stupid for Iran not to make a nuclear reactor, as this energy can be used for domestic purposes and the oil(that will be worth gold in the short future) can be exported.

Why is that so difficult to understand???
UNDERSTAND THIS so called war on terror is not what it seems and too many people are or too ignorant or they know better but defend the US by lies insinuations and what not for one reason or another.

What kind of world are we living in anyway!!??

Seek in 2003 out of 18 million barrels of oil per day produced in the gulf 15.8 were exported thru the straight of Horumz
So if we block Iran from exporting their oil through the straight via blockade we should get their attention pretty quick. They export about 80-85% of their oil though there, I think this is a better option then bombing them.

Great site for the Persian Gulf Oil Production


[edit on 24-8-2005 by WestPoint23]

I concur, WestPoint, but heres my thing: how about we let the EU and UN take and make the first moves, ie: let them block the Straits, etc.?

The US needs to stay backseat to this Iranian matter, IMHO, be it when seeking UN sanctions, be it if the measures progress to military use, as in military blocking of the Straits. Let the EU and the UN take and make the moves and play lead role whichever the actions go from here.





seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
I concur, WestPoint, but heres my thing: how about we let the EU and UN take and make the first moves, ie: let them block the Straits, etc.?

The US needs to stay backseat to this Iranian matter, IMHO, be it when seeking UN sanctions, be it if the measures progress to military use, as in military blocking of the Straits. Let the EU and the UN take and make the moves and play lead role whichever the actions go from here.





seekerof

With respect, I apreciate you letting us europeans go first but why the whole "take the lead role whichever the actions go from here" ?
Are you guys control freaks?
No offence intended.

No control freaks required, simply respect; respect in that this was a EU initiative, not a US intiative, as indicated by my initial post creating this topic. As I have repeatedly mentioned and asserted, the US should remain backseat and let the EU be the ones to approach the UN Security Council over sanctions against Iran, let the EU be the ones to approach the UN for military type actions, such as would be required to block the Straits, let the EU be the first to send ships to do the blockading, etc. [all pending that actions are deemed in need of going to this extent].

In other words, let the EU continue to be the first to intiate actions, be they whatever they may be, with the US remaining backseat.





seekerof

[edit on 24-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
No control freaks required, simply respect; respect in that this was a EU initiative, not a US intiative, as indicated by my initial post creating this topic. As I have repeatedly mentioned and asserted, the US should remain backseat and let the EU be the ones to approach the UN Security Council over sanctions against Iran, let the EU be the ones to approach the UN for military type actions, such as would be required to block the Straits, let the EU be the first to send ships to do the blockading, etc. [all pending that actions are deemed in need of going to this extent].

In other words, let the EU continue to be the first to intiate actions, be they whatever they may be, with the US remaining backseat.





seekerof

[edit on 24-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Sorry, I misinterpreted it.
I'm quite impressed...I've never really heard that many americans talk of europe like that

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Seek in 2003 out of 18 million barrels of oil per day produced in the gulf 15.8 were exported thru the straight of Horumz
So if we block Iran from exporting their oil through the straight via blockade we should get their attention pretty quick. They export about 80-85% of their oil though there, I think this is a better option then bombing them.

Great site for the Persian Gulf Oil Production


[edit on 24-8-2005 by WestPoint23]

You are going to get attention alright. You see its not only Iran that is exporting through the strait of hormuz, it is many of the arab gulf states. A fair amount of oil gets exported from there. Now oil is at over $60 right now. This is hurting the US economy more than anyone since you are on of the if not the (have to check) biggest oil consumer in the world. You block the strait of hormuz oil is going to shoot up to anywhere between $80-90. You will also get the attention of China, $100 billion deal with Iran about oil a few months ago, and Japan your good ally who is the biggest importer of Iranian oil. Needless to say a chain reaction would start as a result of the blockade of the strait of hormuz, which would dwarf any reaction by Iran by bombing their nuclear facilities. It would hurt your allies as well as yourself.

They don’t have to stop all the ships just the ones coming from Iran. If that cannot be done for some reason then we would have the whole world’s attention for better or for worse on the Iran situation.

It seems the views of those knowledgable and expert in this area are just to be ignored, hmmmm?

Despite even American inspectors now agreeing that the mere traces of plutonium contamination came from Pakistani sources and do not indicate that the Iranians are doing anything other than researching nuclear power.

US government experts and other international scientists has determined that traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, the Washington Post reported Tuesday.

"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," the Post quoted a senior official, who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.

The existence of the group of experts had not been previously reported, the newspaper said, adding that they had met in secret to pore over data collected by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The IAEA, according to Western diplomats, has already concluded that enriched uranium particles found in Iran were from smuggled Pakistani equipment.

Iran has long contended that the uranium traces were the result of contaminated equipment bought years ago from Pakistan. But the Bush administration had pointed to the material as evidence that Iran was making bomb-grade ingredients.

news.yahoo.com...

- Still nevermind eh, just keep on asserting they are still trying to make weapons no matter what the informed and the facts indicate, right?
Maybe they'll talk up the war they want no matter what, hmmmm?

(but if so you can count Europe and even the UK out of any such murderous nonsense)

[edit on 25-8-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

If Iran is truely after peaceful nuclear power then why did they hide and cover up their facilities for 15 years? It is legal to have nuclear power if the IAEA monitors it. Why would they be deceptive?

Originally posted by rstrik
If Iran is truely after peaceful nuclear power then why did they hide and cover up their facilities for 15 years? It is legal to have nuclear power if the IAEA monitors it. Why would they be deceptive?

Would you trust someone who betrays your most simplistic and basic laws?

Can you elaborate on that comment?

Originally posted by rstrik
Can you elaborate on that comment?

Well look at the US compared to iran. You cant tell me the two countries are VERY diffrent.
I mean american culture in itself is breaking most islmaic rules.

Originally posted by rstrik
If Iran is truely after peaceful nuclear power then why did they hide and cover up their facilities for 15 years?

- Who says they did?

Iran's nuclear power program was all got started thanks to the USA, so it's beginings are hardly any secret.

In any event this allegation is hardly proof of anything, much less any actual nuclear weapons.

It is legal to have nuclear power if the IAEA monitors it. Why would they be deceptive?

- Why, given the history of the US & Iran would they especially trust the US and make public (to the 'west') the full details of their program?
Not keeping the USA fully informed is hardly an illegal act.

Iran has been cooperating (and still does - their facilities are still monitored) with the IAEA - are you claiming they are not any longer (and if so please provide something to back up the allegation).

What is it (exactly) you are claiming they have done illegally?

Iran is a signatory to the anti nuclear proliferation treaty, are you claiming they have broken its conditions and if so could you detail these illegal activities specifically?

Originally posted by Seekerof
No control freaks required, simply respect; respect in that this was a EU initiative, not a US intiative, as indicated by my initial post creating this topic. As I have repeatedly mentioned and asserted, the US should remain backseat and let the EU be the ones to approach the UN Security Council over sanctions against Iran, let the EU be the ones to approach the UN for military type actions, such as would be required to block the Straits, let the EU be the first to send ships to do the blockading, etc. [all pending that actions are deemed in need of going to this extent].

In other words, let the EU continue to be the first to intiate actions, be they whatever they may be, with the US remaining backseat.

I agree with your post for the most part, but that last sentance is not an option in my opinion.

The US can not simply sit back and watch as the EU does nothing. Iran needs to be taken care of, and if the EU does nothing, the US will eventually be compelled to. Iran aquiring nuclear weapons is unexceptable IMO. Obviously I would like to have the EU take care of it. However, I have little faith in France or Germany. Honestly, of the major players the UK is the only one that I think has the stones to make sure the job is done.

I am concerned that if left to the EU, they will simply talk the topic to death, and take little significant action.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
It seems the views of those knowledgable and expert in this area are just to be ignored, hmmmm?

Despite even American inspectors now agreeing that the mere traces of plutonium contamination came from Pakistani sources and do not indicate that the Iranians are doing anything other than researching nuclear power.

- Still nevermind eh, just keep on asserting they are still trying to make weapons no matter what the informed and the facts indicate, right?
Maybe they'll talk up the war they want no matter what, hmmmm?

sminkeypinkey:
You merely presenting on small piece of the larger picture in your mentions above.
This is not a matter of what Pakistan sent and what has been determined about that matter. This matter concerns the larger picture of Irans intended goal to build/obtain nuclear weapons. Most analyst, be they military or intelligence, have estimated a number of time tables for Iran obtaining them. The entire topic has nothing to do with the issue of what Pakistan sent Iran, but it has all to do with Iran's desires and goals to obtain nuclear capabilities. As such, are you contesting that Iran is not seeking to obtain such capabilities based upon what you presented?







seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
You merely presenting on small piece of the larger picture in your mentions above.

- I do not agree.

I see a mountain of speculation with no basis in proven fact and it now turns out that the tiny kernal of interest (the plutonium contamination) upon which so much of this weapons speculation was based is demonstrably empty and not actually a sound basis to conjure up a weapons program.

Those that want to imagine Iranian nuclear weapons will no doubt continue to imagine them but let us be absolutely clear there is not one ounce of evidence that proves they have an actual weapons program at all.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I agree with your post for the most part, but that last sentance is not an option in my opinion.

The US can not simply sit back and watch as the EU does nothing. Iran needs to be taken care of, and if the EU does nothing, the US will eventually be compelled to. Iran aquiring nuclear weapons is unexceptable IMO. Obviously I would like to have the EU take care of it. However, I have little faith in France or Germany. Honestly, of the major players the UK is the only one that I think has the stones to make sure the job is done.

I am concerned that if left to the EU, they will simply talk the topic to death, and take little significant action.

With respect the EU , includeing france and germany would take action if needed.