EU - Iranian nuclear deal - Good? Bad? Indifferent?

BWhite · 2004-11-08 10:13:36

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArt … on=news]EU - Iranian nuclear deal pending.

If France, Germany, Spain and Britain say the deal is done, is that good enough for Washington and Tel Aviv?

What about France, Germany & Spain, without Britain?

clark · 2004-11-08 10:21:58

Well, Washington wants to take this to the Security Council regardless of the outcome. China has already stated they would veto.

US analysis estimate Iran is anywhere from 6 months to 2 years from producing a bomb. The only military options available are for air strikes and economic embargo's.

An airstrike will lead to some casaulties as most of the facilities are heavily guarded by anti-aircraft guns, and Iran can respond conventionaly in Iraq.

An embrago would drive up the price of oil, and may lead to Iran mining the arabian sea, thus causing problems with the oil supply and shipping in the area.

Even if they do bomb the facilities, it will only slow down Iran, not stop it. It may not be worth the public outrage caused by the action.

Couple this with Blair seeking reelection in March, and the back lash could see him and his party ousted.

Perhaps the US is playing bad cop, but wouldn't the Iranian's see through it? If they call our bluff, we would face a Security Council that once again does not approve our actions, and a European community further driven from us as we act unilateraly...

Gennaro · 2004-11-08 11:05:38

*Sigh of relief*

Yes, I think it's a beneficial turn of events. The Persians had to do something in order to avoid getting the short end of the stick. Arguments for airstrikes or worse, invasion, has been wrestled out of Tel Aviv's (and Washington's) warmongering hands. Europe will not wavour but stands on firm ground when it comes to condemning any military action nevertheless carried out. It's also good to have Britain in on this. Perhaps she is slowly realising her home is in Europe and not across the ocean.

Maybe we are even beginning to see the end of an era where the United States and Israel solely were able to do what they allowed no other power without repurcussions: to unilaterally attack sovereign nations and maim their citizens.

Regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, I'm not convinced it could not actually have exclusively peaceful applications. Exporting Bunker T and using the profits to reform one's own energy sector before the black goo runs out would, on the face of it, be smart.

That said, I should in all honesty admit that I don't regard Iran joining the nuclear club as a disaster of the first kind either. It's all about intentions of course, but achieving deterence towards Israel is a rational concern and I believe they can handle it.

What we do know on the other hand is that the Neocon cabal has plotted for crushing Iran since at least the mid 90's. In that light, urgency over Iran's nuclear policy is at least so much an excuse for invasion.
Using US troops, naturally.

DonPanic · 2004-11-08 12:56:27

LO

Perhaps the US is playing bad cop, but wouldn't the Iranian's see through it? If they call our bluff, we would face a Security Council that once again does not approve our actions, and a European community further driven from us as we act unilateraly...

If Iran keeps on enrichment of Uranium programm, I don't think that Europe would condemn an US or Israeli airstrike, as nobody in Europe would be pleased to have ayatollahs owning nukes.

I'm not even quite sure that people in Teheran wouldn't see a strike at Iran with real displeasure, lots are tired of mollahs' dictatorship.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-08 13:11:41

The good news of asking them to stop is one thing but if they do not, what then is the question of what actions should be taken is the real problem? The bad news is how did they ever get the nuclear material in the first place? ???

clark · 2004-11-08 13:28:27

They have uraniamum mines of their own.

DonPanic · 2004-11-08 13:30:43

LO
Iran built its nuke plant with help of Russia.

clark · 2004-11-08 13:33:51

Invade russia before they help other states that support terror?

DonPanic · 2004-11-08 13:56:24

LO

Invade russia before they help other states that support terror?

Gurlp The Frenches did sale a nuke plant to Saddam, bombed later by Israel.
And Canada sold one to Pakistan.

clark · 2004-11-08 14:00:13

Invade France? Bleh. It's like the village tramp, everyone has penetrated her.

We can't invade Canada, we need some place to ship the democrats.

DonPanic · 2004-11-08 14:29:39

LO

Invade France? Bleh. It's like the village tramp, everyone has penetrated her.

Bah France penetrated so many others, even british dynasty is Plantagenet...
Even Clark comes from "clerc"

clark · 2004-11-08 14:58:17

Bah France penetrated so many others, even british dynasty is Plantagenet...

Ah, lovers, not fighters.

And Clark comes from Mars... :laugh:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-11-08 10:13:36

Re: EU - Iranian nuclear deal - Good? Bad? Indifferent?

#2 2004-11-08 10:21:58

Re: EU - Iranian nuclear deal - Good? Bad? Indifferent?

#3 2004-11-08 11:05:38

Re: EU - Iranian nuclear deal - Good? Bad? Indifferent?

#4 2004-11-08 12:56:27

Re: EU - Iranian nuclear deal - Good? Bad? Indifferent?

#5 2004-11-08 13:11:41

Re: EU - Iranian nuclear deal - Good? Bad? Indifferent?

#6 2004-11-08 13:28:27

Re: EU - Iranian nuclear deal - Good? Bad? Indifferent?

#7 2004-11-08 13:30:43

Re: EU - Iranian nuclear deal - Good? Bad? Indifferent?

#8 2004-11-08 13:33:51

Re: EU - Iranian nuclear deal - Good? Bad? Indifferent?

#9 2004-11-08 13:56:24

Re: EU - Iranian nuclear deal - Good? Bad? Indifferent?

#10 2004-11-08 14:00:13

Re: EU - Iranian nuclear deal - Good? Bad? Indifferent?

#11 2004-11-08 14:29:39

Re: EU - Iranian nuclear deal - Good? Bad? Indifferent?

#12 2004-11-08 14:58:17

Re: EU - Iranian nuclear deal - Good? Bad? Indifferent?

Board footer