• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

No one could have predicted…

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

“More of this”, i said to the dog.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Why did Dr. Oz lose? well, according to the exit polls, it’s because Fetterman won.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / Dealing With Iran

Dealing With Iran

by John Cole|  February 16, 200612:35 pm| 70 Comments

This post is in: Foreign Affairs

FacebookTweetEmail

France cuts right to the point:

France plainly accused Iran today of pursuing a nuclear program that can only be intended for military purposes, just a two days after Iran said it had resumed enrichment for civilian purposes.

The declaration by Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy raised the pressure on Iran, ahead of talks next week in Brussels and Moscow with European Union and Russian officials, as Iran tries to avert a showdown at the Security Council in March.

“Today, it’s simple; no civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. So, it’s an Iranian clandestine military nuclear program,” Mr. Douste-Blazy said on a morning news show on France 2 television.

I am not used to such straightforward and undiplomatic proclamations from our European allies, and I am unsure if this should tell me the situation is even worse than I had previously thought.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Slow Learners
Next Post: Score Another One for General Stupidity »

Reader Interactions

70Comments

  1. 1.

    D. Mason

    February 16, 2006 at 12:44 pm

    I guess if we weren’t bogged down in iraq we might be in a position to do soemthing about it. Too bad, so sad.

  2. 2.

    Mr Furious

    February 16, 2006 at 12:51 pm

    Good for France. Too bad we didn’t listen to them last time, or we might be in a position to do something about it…

  3. 3.

    LITBMueller

    February 16, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    “Today, it’s simple; no civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. So, it’s an Iranian clandestine military nuclear program.”

    I read this, and immediately became suspicious: this sort of logic is like saying, “The fact that bees fly cannot be explained by physics. So, bees fly by magic!”

    Who the hell is this Philippe guy? A simple look at Wikipedia will show you he’s incredibly unqualified for his position:

    Douste-Blazy was a cardiologist who got into politics, served as Mayor of Tolouse, and has held health and culture-related ministerial positions since the 90’s.

    But here is the kicker:

    On June 6, 2005, he was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of Dominique de Villepin. Commentators expressed doubts at the competency of Douste-Blazy for this position. Le Canard Enchaîné reported that Douste-Blazy had committed two gaffes in September 2005: he disclosed to journalists the fact that he was going to have a meeting with the president of Iran, whereas this meeting was supposed to be secret; and, during a visit to a holocaust museum in Israel, he expressed surprise that no British Jews were shown to have been sent to Nazi death camps during the Second World War (the Channel Islands were the only British dependency occupied by the Nazis, thus only the Jewish population of those islands was deported). The latter prompted renewed accusations of antisemitism against France.

    Wow! Yer doin’ a heckuva job, Douste-Blazy-ie!!!!

    So, I would suggest taking this man’s GIGANTIC leap of logic, unsupported by facts or evidence, with an even BIGGER grain of salt.

    The fact remains that our own intelligence agencies have concluded that it would take Iran some 10 years to build any nuclear wepaon. Yet, there seems to be some sort of collective wisdom being thrown about by world leaders and the press that Iran is only days/months away from building a bomb. Yet, we have less evidence than we had in the run-up to Iraq: no presentations at the UN, no satellite imagery, no INC-provided defectors.

    We’re getting railroaded. This Douste-Blazy is helping.

  4. 4.

    ppGaz

    February 16, 2006 at 12:55 pm

    France voted against the GWOT before they voted for it.

    They can’t be trusted.

    People … and countries … who change their minds are not to be trusted. Once you make your mind up, that’s it. Stick to your guns.

    If I wanted wishy-washy, I would have voted for … well, maybe I would …. er …. uh …

    All I know is, “French” is for toast, and for kissing. Not good for much else.

  5. 5.

    Brian

    February 16, 2006 at 12:59 pm

    I guess now we can all set to the task of dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions….because France has spoken!

    The situation is as bad, if not worse, than it seems. Rather than diddling around about Cheney’s hunting mistake (although we can all thank the W.H. and Cheney for screwing the pooch in communicating on that one), and focusing their energies on the NSA, Plamegate, and Britney Spears driving with her baby in her lap, the media is abdicating it responsibilities and its resources in not giving this story the attention it deserves.

    I will bet that we’re in direct conflict with Iran by this summer. A lot of signs are pointing that way: Ahmadinejad’s rattling about the destruction of Israel and last weekend’s speech where he encouraged his people and military to prepare for conflict, plans being drawn for attacks on key facilities by Western forces, the mobilization of Muslims through a ginned-up cartoon controversy (I don’t think they’re necessarily mutually exclusive), encouragement by the U.S. to resistance groups within the country – that Iran will fight against, and the internal crackdown on the Sufis that will only help bring international pressure on the regime.

    It’s serious business.

  6. 6.

    D. Mason

    February 16, 2006 at 1:01 pm

    LITBMueller if Iraq is any indication, the decision to go to war has already been made, they’re just doing the pre-game warmup now. WWIII might be just around the corner. If we start bombing Iranian nuclear facilities the fallout could be catastrophic to Irans neighbors. What do you want to bet they wouldn’t appreciate that too much?

    Iran would be foolish to NOT be trying to get nukes. Having a functioning nuke might just be the only thing that could protect them from the American Empire.

    I feel bad for our soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. If this build up comes to fruitition, they will be caught in a bloodbath.

  7. 7.

    LITBMueller

    February 16, 2006 at 1:05 pm

    I totally agree, D. Mason. Don’t forget the incredible economic shockwave sent through the oil industry – it would (will?) be devastating to our economy.

  8. 8.

    Marcus Wellby

    February 16, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    I see, so we are no longer mocking and ignoring the French? It is hard to keep track these days…

  9. 9.

    Lines

    February 16, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    in my best righty man-voice

    We can always drill through the glass to get to the oil.

  10. 10.

    D. Mason

    February 16, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    Not just our economy LITBMueller the entire worlds economy, especially the emerging industrial superpower China. That seems(to me) like a possible catalyst for the start of a third world war. When Chinese industries start floundering because of our agressive foriegn policy it seems entirely likely(to me) that China could get an itch to interfere.

    Of course, our VERY oil dependant military machine would be brought to a grinding halt if the oil pipelines run dry, and our soldiers(who aren’t trained to operate without a river of petroleum flowing beneath them) would be hanged out to dry. With our army descimated and our economy in ruin the U.S. would be ripe for the picking. This is of course only one possibility among a myriad of plausible scenarios, but if it were to happen this way we might all be speaking mandarin in 20 years.

  11. 11.

    capelza

    February 16, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    All I know is, “French” is for toast, and for kissing. Not good for much else.

    Two words…beaujolais nouveau.

    So some guy from France has spoken and now his statements will used as a prop…like those resolutions from the UN (that useless organisation that we’ll still use as a rationale to do whatever we want).

    We want to have our gateau and eat it, too…

  12. 12.

    Steve

    February 16, 2006 at 1:26 pm

    Our European “allies” will overplay their hand on this, as usual.

  13. 13.

    John S.

    February 16, 2006 at 1:27 pm

    I am not used to such straightforward and undiplomatic proclamations from our European allies

    I guess that they are aspiring to be more like the United States.

    Not that our proclamations with this administration are really all that straightforward, though they certainly are undiplomatic.

  14. 14.

    srv

    February 16, 2006 at 1:30 pm

    LITBMueller if Iraq is any indication, the decision to go to war has already been made, they’re just doing the pre-game warmup now.

    Yes, we have our newest Hitler, and he is Ahmadinejad. Bushcult Rapture(TM) in our own times.

    I totally agree, D. Mason. Don’t forget the incredible economic shockwave sent through the oil industry – it would (will?) be devastating to our economy.

    Just join us in the futures market. There’s alot of money to be made on the dead.

  15. 15.

    Don Surber

    February 16, 2006 at 1:36 pm

    1. when did the french become an ally?

    2. french don’t like it, let them send their troops in.

  16. 16.

    Marcus Wellby

    February 16, 2006 at 1:37 pm

    Our European “allies” will overplay their hand on this, as usual.

    Haha!That is good snark…

  17. 17.

    Steve

    February 16, 2006 at 1:41 pm

    1. when did the french become an ally?

    1776

  18. 18.

    spoosmith

    February 16, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    It was Bush who first lumped them into that axis of evil bullsh*t. If I were Iran, I would be trying to make a nuclear weapon as fast as I could. It would be the only deterrant to stave off an attack. Do I think they would actually use it? No more so than India and Pakistan, who were actually threatening to use theirs (and no one called them names).

    If the US bombs Iran, I think that the entire Middle East will form a solidarity against the US “aggression” as they would see it and Muslims around the world would rise up in protest of what they would see as an attack on Islamic countries.

    The world cannot afford this showdown.

  19. 19.

    Marcus Wellby

    February 16, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    when did the french become an ally?

    Ever since LeBeau baked a cake for Schultz so that Kinch could sneak past him and put a bug in Klink’s flower pot. Damn man, do you know any history at all?

  20. 20.

    Tom

    February 16, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    I shudder to think of the tone of the forthcoming strongly worded resolution..,

  21. 21.

    Paddy O'Shea

    February 16, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    While it is refreshing to see our European allies stepping up, I can’t help but suspect that at least part of the reason for their doing so is fear of what the irrational leadership in the United States might do if they don’t get involved.

    Events have forced them to play the role we used to play. That is, adults.

  22. 22.

    Stormy70

    February 16, 2006 at 2:15 pm

    Off-topic, sorry, but I can’t help myself, and really, where is the open thread for us today?!

    Did Krista anyone see Sayid Lost last night? Oh, my. I think I need to be tortured just a little by a certain castaway. Stat.

  23. 23.

    Sayid

    February 16, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    Stormy, I am sure there are many at Balloon-Juice who would enjoy waterboarding with you.

  24. 24.

    Par R

    February 16, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    It’s good to see that geopolitical foreign affairs experts, LITBMueller and D. Mason have weighed in with their carefully thought out concerns. Personally, I think they should have drank a lot more of the Kool Aid before tossing around such apocalyptic nonsense.

    The dangers of significant radioactive fallout from well placed bombs on the Iranian program at this stage of development are slight. In any event, you can’t expect to make an omelette without breaking the eggs, as they say. (This last comment is intended to be as stupid as most of their comments were.) The oil shock, both price and availability, associated with the aftermath of a preemptive attack on Iran’s developing nuclear facilities, would pose some short term issues, but should be manageable in short order; one need only to look back to the experience of the Arab embargo back in the 1970s for guidance.

    The French action, which reflected the views of the most senior leaders of France rather than the willful musings of the Foreign Minister (as LITBMueller appears to believe), are encouraging signs. They suggest that perhaps the Europeans may well get their act together, so that together with the Russians, a strong economic sanctions program can be put in place if the Iranians don’t back down. A united position on the need for a firm program might in and of itself lead to a moderation in the Iranian program.

  25. 25.

    Pooh

    February 16, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    Stormy, I know I was right in mocking you because I didn’t feel the least bit guilty afterwords.

    ;)

    Pooh’s theorem of Lost contains to gain ground

  26. 26.

    Stormy70

    February 16, 2006 at 2:27 pm

    Pooh’s theorem of Lost contains to gain ground

    I don’t think anyone posting here feels remotely guilty about anything, ever.

    Sayid – waterboarding? Mexican Riviera? Don’t tell Barbara.

  27. 27.

    Joey

    February 16, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    1. when did the french become an ally?

    From our very first moment of existence. They are our oldest ally, and though relations have been strained at times, they have never not been an ally. Friends fight all the time over stupid shit.

  28. 28.

    Marcus Wellby

    February 16, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    I don’t think anyone posting here feels remotely guilty about anything, ever.

    Sayid – waterboarding? Mexican Riviera? Don’t tell Barbara.

    No spoilers please!! I am new to Lost — watched all of Season 1 on DVD last week and am making my way through season 2 on iTunes — it is quite possibly the best network show ever.

    Hmm, stormy, with you Kaysar thang over the summer and your Sayad infatuation I think I see a pattern developing…

  29. 29.

    Krista

    February 16, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    Shit! I was told it wasn’t going to be a new episode last night, ’cause of the Olympics. Son of a bitch…now I’m mad. I’ll have to get my ass over to Television Without Pity and see what happened. It won’t be the same, though.

    I’m still vehemently against torture, but he could pin me down and tickle me…that’d be legal, wouldn’t it?

  30. 30.

    Stormy70

    February 16, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    No spoilers here, just admiring the cut of Sayid’s jib.

    As for patterns, I think Kim and Sawyer are hot, too. I appreciate all forms of male beauty. On the other side of the color spectrum was Legolas from LoTR.

    But Naveen was the only redeeming value of the English Patient. If he had not shown up, I would have had to do something drastic to escape that horrible movie. I was very happy to see him on Lost.

  31. 31.

    Stormy70

    February 16, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    Krista! I think next week’s episode will be a rerun, but sometimes when they have a new episode they will show the previous episode one hour before the new episode airs. Whew! I am exhausted after typing that run-on sentence.

    You must see that episode. I cannot stress this enough. ;)

  32. 32.

    D. Mason

    February 16, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    Par R I know that you live a neo-conned existance where experts are gods and common people are brain dead but in the real world where the rest of us live the writing on the wall is pretty clear. It doesn’t take an expert to see that the U.S. is courting disaster. We are approaching a tipping point and invading Iran would be a giant lurch forward.

    The dangers of significant radioactive fallout from well placed bombs on the Iranian program at this stage of development are slight.

    There is a direct corelation with the progress towards having a nuke and the signifigance of the fallout from an attack on the labs working to create them. Therefore by your logic they are far(as our intelligence reports say) from having a working bomb. Why the hurry to stir up more shit? Is another pre-emptive war what we need?

    They suggest that perhaps the Europeans may well get their act together, so that together with the Russians, a strong economic sanctions program can be put in place if the Iranians don’t back down.

    I believe that every citizen who has an interest in world affairs hopes and prays that a diplomatic resolution can be reached. But once again, if Iraq is any indicator, that’s not really on the table.

    I’m not some left wing nut who believes we should never defend our interests, but give me a break. We are bogged down in 2 wars… Are we going for a quagmire hat-trick? George Washington said “beware of foreign entanglements”. I think that was sage advice then and I’m sure it is now. Too bad noone is listening.

  33. 33.

    Krista

    February 16, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    Stormy – I’ll do my best. And if worst comes to worst, there’s always the DVD. That’s what I did with Galactica, anyway.

  34. 34.

    tzs

    February 16, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    What happens if Iran decides (preemptively) to sink a few of their tankers in the Straits of Hormuz?

    Hello, $100+ per barrel of oil?

    Have any of the war planners factored that into their plans?

    Sheesh.

  35. 35.

    Don Surber

    February 16, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    when did the french become an ally?

    Ever since LeBeau baked a cake for Schultz so that Kinch could sneak past him and put a bug in Klink’s flower pot. Damn man, do you know any history at all?

    LOL

    Actually it was not until 1779 for those of you keeping score at home and then only to piss off the brits. Our oldest ally is Poland. Pulaski roolz

    France stopped being our ally in 1801 when Jefferson launched a preemptive war against the barbary pirates, whom teh french had been bribing since Joan d’Arc

    Next time the Germans invade france, I say we let them keep it

    It will teach both of them a lesson

  36. 36.

    Pooh

    February 16, 2006 at 3:22 pm

    Krista, you should be able to download the episode from itunes for $1.99.

    And that should have been ‘Pooh’s Theorem of Lost continues to gain ground.’

  37. 37.

    Bob In Pacifica

    February 16, 2006 at 3:31 pm

    Don Surber writes, “France stopped being our ally in 1801.”

    Don, in case you haven’t been following closely over the last 200 years, they freed the slaves and women got the vote.

  38. 38.

    Bob In Pacifica

    February 16, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    Calling Valerie,

    How’s the CIA Humint on Iran’s nuclear work going?

  39. 39.

    Sam Hutcheson

    February 16, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    A couple of points that people not indoctrinated in the latest spin points of whatever party might be interested to know:

    1) There is one country with which the Bush administration meets to discuss foriegn policy on a weekly basis: France. They have a constant FP attache in Washington specifically for this meeting.

    2) The nearest approximation of neo-conservativism on the European continent is Gaulism.

    3) France is more concerned about Iranian nukes, to some extent, because Iran probably has the rocket technology to land a warhead in Nice.

  40. 40.

    les

    February 16, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    Does this mean I can stop ordering “freedom fries”, or would that still make me a surrender monkey?

  41. 41.

    Jorge

    February 16, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    I can hear the war drums in the distance – just in time for November. One last Neocon con job before the 2008 POTUS election.

  42. 42.

    Par R

    February 16, 2006 at 4:14 pm

    Pray tell, Mr. Mason, what is your best suggestion since you rule out any form of military action and don’t believe diplomatic pressure will work to resolve the “Iran with a Nuke” issue? Am I right in assuming, based on your comments, that you can live with a nuclear Iran notwithstanding their aberrant behavior and well documented ties to numerous terrorist organizations? If so, perhaps you should sign up for Farsi and Islamic religious instructions right now.

  43. 43.

    The Other Steve

    February 16, 2006 at 4:14 pm

    Hey, what’s this… stratfor article. (got to it from google by searching for ‘russia iran’ under news. so it’s premium and you probably won’t get to it)

    Russia, like France before it, has been talking with Iran primarily to assert influence to the United States’ detriment. In Tehran’s mind, the idea of paying for infrastructure outside of Iran and having no control over it has never been a viable option; Iran has been using these negotiations to buy time and exert its will and has now begun uranium enrichment in its own facilities.

    Even more interesting…

    Iran used similar tactics with France before dealing with Russia. French President Jacques Chirac assured Germany (and most of the European Union) that Europe could solve the Iran nuclear issue, demonstrating to the world that the EU could solve problems the United States could not. However, France’s attempts at negotiation failed as Iran simply manipulated French actions, feigning interest in talks to gain more time, more power and more press. By following similar tactics with Paris and Moscow, Iran has displayed a cunning aptitude for feeding countries’ egos and playing capitals off of each other.

    Iran is cunning, and they know what they are doing. They are our biggest threat in the middle east. Unfortunately they are too cunning for our existing administration, which already fell for their Iraq gambit.

    Nothing much I can do about it. The Bush administration is guaranteed to fuck this up and make it worse, purposefully so they can campaign in the next election on how this problem needs to be solved.

  44. 44.

    Perry Como

    February 16, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    Anyone want to start a “When will the US bomb Iran” pool? I say within 1.5 months. Their Euro traded oil bourse is opening within that time frame.

  45. 45.

    MAX HATS

    February 16, 2006 at 4:50 pm

    when did the french become an ally?

    Ever since LeBeau baked a cake for Schultz so that Kinch could sneak past him and put a bug in Klink’s flower pot. Damn man, do you know any history at all?

    LOL

    Actually it was not until 1779 for those of you keeping score at home and then only to piss off the brits. Our oldest ally is Poland. Pulaski roolz

    France stopped being our ally in 1801 when Jefferson launched a preemptive war against the barbary pirates, whom teh french had been bribing since Joan d’Arc

    Next time the Germans invade france, I say we let them keep it

    It will teach both of them a lesson

    U R DUM

    Even by the purely bellicose metric used by so called “conservatives” to measure international co-operation, France is amongst our closest allies. Our intelligence agencies co-operate to a unprecendented degree in the capture and rendition of terrorist suspects and the sharing of intelligence on Muslim extremist movements.

  46. 46.

    LITBMueller

    February 16, 2006 at 4:53 pm

    From Par R

    It’s good to see that geopolitical foreign affairs experts, LITBMueller and D. Mason have weighed in with their carefully thought out concerns. Personally, I think they should have drank a lot more of the Kool Aid before tossing around such apocalyptic nonsense.

    Kool Aid? No. I’ll leave that stuff to the Neocons. I prefer beer and good ol’ realpolitik, anyway. You know, the kind we used to practice before we took up the Shoot First, Ask Questions Later Doctrine(tm).

    The dangers of significant radioactive fallout from well placed bombs on the Iranian program at this stage of development are slight.

    Remember, though, there is another type of fallout: political. Shiite unrest in Iraq, a blockade of the Straights of Hormuz by Iran, retaliatory strikes by Iran and its terrorist allies, increased nuclear proliferation as other countries in the region race to secretly get the bomb, an end to any moderate political reform movement in Iran (if not much of the Middle East), damage to our relations with China and Russia….

    The oil shock, both price and availability, associated with the aftermath of a preemptive attack on Iran’s developing nuclear facilities, would pose some short term issues, but should be manageable in short order; one need only to look back to the experience of the Arab embargo back in the 1970s for guidance.

    That was 30 years ago. The economy is much different now, with strengths and weaknesses in different areas. A radical increase in oil prices affects every single sector of the American economy, and we saw from smaller “shocks to the system,” such as Katrina and the steadily rising prices over ths summer that there is a big economic backlash from increasing oil prices.

    But even if our economy, if it was the only one affected, could survive it, what of the rest of the world, becuase the oil shock would be felt worldwide.

    Iran supplies something like 13% of China’s oil. Their demand is skyrocketing. Could they survive the shock? What of our trade with China (since we are in such a trade deficit)? How would that afect our economy?

    And what about Europe? How would the oil shock affect their economies?

    And what of our neighbors to the South, Mexico and South America? How would their economies fare? Are you worried about illegal immigration? Well, you’d be even more upset after a major oil shock disrupts the world economy.

    But, hey, if you think $100 per barrell is A-OK, I hope you’ll enjoy those gas lines! ;)

  47. 47.

    Steve

    February 16, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    Am I right in assuming, based on your comments, that you can live with a nuclear Iran notwithstanding their aberrant behavior and well documented ties to numerous terrorist organizations? If so, perhaps you should sign up for Farsi and Islamic religious instructions right now.

    Can we live with a nuclear Pakistan? Can we live with a nuclear Soviet Union? Maybe in hindsight the Soviets were “sane” but I don’t recall being so sure of it at the time.

    It does not help to talk about this issue in absolutist terms (“Either you favor stopping Iran from getting the bomb regardless of the costs, or else you’re happy to see Iran getting the bomb”). Everyone obviously prefers that they not get it. The questions are: (1) What will it take to stop them, and (2) Is it worth doing? Anyone who answers (2) without first answering (1) is unserious in my book.

  48. 48.

    LITBMueller

    February 16, 2006 at 5:10 pm

    You beat me to it, Steve. But, I will add a line fom Revenge of the Sith for shits n’ giggles:

    “Only a Neocon deals in absolutes, Par R.”

    But, as far as what we SHOULD do, whatever happened to direct talks? Why are we letting other countries take the lead, even though Iran wants a nuclear program to keep the US at bay?

    Lets face it: the Eupropean-led negotiations were designed to fail. Iran was never ineterested in nuclear technology because they were worried about Europe. They are worried about US.

    What would be wrong with personally offering a non-aggression pact to Iran if they, in return, abandon their quest for nuclear technology? What about offering carrots instead of just flashing sticks?

    That is the essence of true diplomacy – something this administration is completely uninterested in.

  49. 49.

    Sayid

    February 16, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    Other Steve, exactly.

    Axis-of-Evil(TM): 1/2002
    Let’s start worrying about it: 2006

    Bzzt. Too late.

    Iran and their ally, China, are way smarter than our guys are. Think of this a war-by-proxy by China. Our power in the ME will decline, and we’ll all be better off for it. Empires corrode the soul and safety.

  50. 50.

    The Other Steve

    February 16, 2006 at 6:17 pm

    What would be wrong with personally offering a non-aggression pact to Iran if they, in return, abandon their quest for nuclear technology? What about offering carrots instead of just flashing sticks?

    Is there anything that the US could possibly offer Iran which would dissuade them?

    That’s the thing, the US has just backed itself into a corner. If we threaten military action, they’ll just say “That’s why we need to build nukes”, and we can’t really threaten economic sanctions because we already have them imposed and they don’t care.

    I suppose we could flail our arms around in the air and scream.

  51. 51.

    srv

    February 16, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    I suppose we could flail our arms around in the air and scream.

    Well, it’ll be more like we’ll bang the wardrums and all sorts of hysterical allegations. Mushroom clouds! I’ll tell you what. Then bomb some sites and declare mission accomplished. Call any dems that don’t support it ninnies and milk it for November.

    In the end, Iran still gets the bomb, and the population fighting for liberalization against the clerics just gets more marginalized. Progress set aside for another generation or so.

  52. 52.

    LITBMueller

    February 16, 2006 at 6:44 pm

    Is there anything that the US could possibly offer Iran which would dissuade them?

    Well, I suggested one: a non-agression pact. Kinda addresses the whole reason they want nukes, doesn’t it?

    Here’s another one: a scheduled, gradual lifting of our current sanctions tied in to specific goals: dismantling of specific nuclear sites, IAEA inspections, etc…whatever.

    The fact that the President and the media have not broached the topic does not mean that there aren’t several ways to approach negotiations…without a loaded gun!

    All it takes some creativity and open-mindedness.

  53. 53.

    LITBMueller

    February 16, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    In the end, Iran still gets the bomb

    That’s an excellent point, BTW, srv: any attack short of invasion and conquering Iran will only delay their nuclear program, not end it completely.

  54. 54.

    hass

    February 16, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    The French are simply trying to make up for the fact that most people there don’t trust their own president either:
    “Few French adults appear satisfied with Jacques Chirac, according to a poll by TNS-Sofres published in Le Figaro. Only 21 per cent of respondents express confidence in their president to face the country’s problems” http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/10875

    Here are the known facts about Iran’s nuclear program:

    1- Iran has a legitimate economic case for nuclear power, which the US (including some of the members of the current Bush administration) encouraged. (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html and http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH24Ak02.html)

    2- Iran’s enrichment program was not clandestine, and was widely reported in the nuclear industry literature & on Iranian radio. Iran’s deals with countries like CHina to make the necessary plants had been reported to the IAEA, and the IAEA had even visited Iran’s uranium mines in 1992. (See Le Monde Diplomatique: “Iran Needs Nuclear Energy, Not Weapons” November 2005 – http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Wv7d_FdiMH0J:mondediplo.com/2005/11/02iran)

    3- While there were undeclared facilities in Iran, the IAEA reported in Nov 2003 that “to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons program.” Several other countries were caught cheating much worse with nuclear experiments than Iran (S. Korea, Bulgaria, Egypt . . .) but they just got a slap on th e wrist & no demands were made of them to totally give up their rights to a civilian nuclear industry.

    4- In Nov 2004, the IAEA reported that “all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities.”

    5- In Jan 2006, the IAEA reported that “Iran has continued to facilitate access under its Safeguards Agreement as requested by the Agency . . . including by providing in a timely manner the requisite declarations and access to locations.”

    6- Repeated offers of compromise by Iran that would have addressed the risk of proliferation of nukes were simply dismissed without any consideration. Most recently, Iran’s Jan 2006 offer to continue the suspension of enrichment for another 2 years of additional negotiations were summarily dismissed, and not even reported in the US press though it was reported in the Iranian press (see
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB07Ak01.html )

    Oh yeah, there’s also a “magic laptop” which has literally fallen out of the blue sky, and conveniently provides all the evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran that no one else has found after 3 years of inspections.

    So, there we have it. Draw your own conclusions. Ask yourself, are nuclear weapons really the issue here or just a pretext?

  55. 55.

    Darrell

    February 16, 2006 at 7:55 pm

    I suspect the French would be singing a different tune if it were French companies rather than Russian with the nuclear fuel and facilities contracts.

  56. 56.

    srv

    February 16, 2006 at 8:02 pm

    Am I right in assuming, based on your comments, that you can live with a nuclear Iran notwithstanding their aberrant behavior and well documented ties to numerous terrorist organizations? If so, perhaps you should sign up for Farsi and Islamic religious instructions right now.

    Aberrant Ahmed. I like that. And you fantasize there’s some moderation to be found with him. Hmm. Chamberlain comes to mind.

    So back to you. The only way we’re going to know for sure is to invade, occupy and democratize Iran. Trusting namby-pampy French and UN inspectors to run around Iran for 10 years? Sanctions! Hah, how Clintonian. How many sites did he bomb? 9/11 changed everything. Either Iran is an existential threat, or it isn’t. Either it’s our obligation to free the Iranian people or it isn’t.

    Why don’t absolutist get absolutism? I absolutely amazes me.

    Maybe it’s because your party is playing for November and not a nuclear-free Iran.

    If not, I know the dems let y’all off easy last time, but could you please submit a detailed plan on invading, occupying and democratizing Iran? And for the sake of us Sharia-lovers, please assume there will be an insurgency.

  57. 57.

    D. Mason

    February 16, 2006 at 8:15 pm

    Par R, I never suggested that diplomatic options wouldn’t work, infact I think it is the only option that can yield positive results. I said diplomacy probably isn’t on the table. Historically speaking, diplomacy hasn’t exactly been a go-to option for the current admin. It’s a tactic they don’t seem to be interested in trying. Of course having a band of war cheerleaders like yourself doesn’t hurt.

    If someone were willing to actually make them accountable for the decisions they make in office maybe they would weigh their options more carefully. In the past few decades presidents haven’t been held accountable for their decisions to go to war and as a byproduct that option has become more and more preferable.

  58. 58.

    srv

    February 16, 2006 at 8:22 pm

    Iran Renames Danish Pastries

    Buwahahahahaha.

    Freedom fries on the march.

  59. 59.

    Darrell

    February 16, 2006 at 8:34 pm

    So, there we have it. Draw your own conclusions. Ask yourself, are nuclear weapons really the issue here or just a pretext?

    Nukes are obviously nothing but a pretext for this bloodthirsty adminstration to justify another War for Oil(TM) in order to exploit the resources of the peace-loving Iranians and to fatten the pockets of Halliburton.

  60. 60.

    Par R

    February 16, 2006 at 9:59 pm

    Darrell says: “Nukes are obviously nothing but a pretext for this bloodthirsty adminstration to justify another War for Oil™ in order to exploit the resources of the peace-loving Iranians and to fatten the pockets of Halliburton.”

    This statement is so idiotic that I assume it is intended as some sort of “ironical” comment. It is, however, the widely accepted view of the should-be-institutionalized crowd at Kos, HuffPo, and MoveOn, among other homes to the Nation’s nitwits.

  61. 61.

    Pooh

    February 16, 2006 at 10:07 pm

    Darrell made a funny, and a not bad one at that. Tip’o’the hat to you, sir.

  62. 62.

    rachel

    February 16, 2006 at 10:16 pm

    Doesn’t anybody in here find it ironic that the US and the British connived at the ouster of Iran’s *democratically elected* Prime Minister Mosaddeq in so they could install the Shah–whom they kept in power for the next thirty years in spite of his abyssmal human rights record–and now they’re talking about democratizing Iran by force. Ha. Ha. Ha.

    If I were an average Irani, I’d want the bomb for my country the day before yesterday so as to discourage those nosy Parkers from screwing over my country *again*.

  63. 63.

    Steve

    February 17, 2006 at 12:17 am

    Par R Says:

    Darrell says: “Nukes are obviously nothing but a pretext for this bloodthirsty adminstration to justify another War for Oil™ in order to exploit the resources of the peace-loving Iranians and to fatten the pockets of Halliburton.”

    This statement is so idiotic that I assume it is intended as some sort of “ironical” comment. It is, however, the widely accepted view of the should-be-institutionalized crowd at Kos, HuffPo, and MoveOn, among other homes to the Nation’s nitwits.

    Elsewhere…

    Par R Says:

    The dangers of significant radioactive fallout from well placed bombs on the Iranian program at this stage of development are slight.

    I can’t imagine a better illustration of why I prefer the nitwits on my side to the nitwits on the other side. Seriously, John Cole wastes time fretting about left-wingers who speculate about how much alcohol the Vice-President drinks, when right-wingers are busy advocating that we NUKE IRAN.

  64. 64.

    srv

    February 17, 2006 at 1:04 am

    when right-wingers are busy advocating that we NUKE IRAN.

    I read it that way first too, but I think he’s talking about our convential bombs hitting their enrichment facilities.

    That said, this admin has been overtly (and covertly I’d bet) working on low-yield nukes for hardened targets. Congress stopped it, but last I heard, they were talking about it again.

  65. 65.

    srv

    February 17, 2006 at 1:09 am

    Oh yeah, there’s also a “magic laptop” which has literally fallen out of the blue sky, and conveniently provides all the evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran that no one else has found after 3 years of inspections.

    Yeah, I loved that one. It’ll become exhibit A over the next few months. Almost as funny as Jesus’ Generals magic BB theory on Whittington… Has anyone checked it for Ladeens fingerprints?

  66. 66.

    Steve

    February 17, 2006 at 1:13 am

    I read it that way first too, but I think he’s talking about our convential bombs hitting their enrichment facilities.

    You could be right, although I’m sure everyone knows I wouldn’t have to venture far out into the right-wing blogosphere to find advocates of tactical nukes, not to mention the Tancredo Solution.

    Conventional wisdom seems to be that Iran has learned their lesson from being whacked by the Israelis and that their program is no longer vulnerable to a surgical strike, but it’s not like I have any idea. I’m not surprised that the same right-wing blog commentors who magically know exactly what is involved in the NSA spying program also know exactly what stage the Iran nuclear program is at.

  67. 67.

    Pb

    February 17, 2006 at 1:23 am

    Heh, a ‘magic laptop’. Reminds me of the 9/11 ‘magic passport’ (brother of the magic Arabic flight manual).

  68. 68.

    The Other Steve

    February 17, 2006 at 9:48 am

    Ah ha! danish pastries are now Roses of the Prohphet! Funny! BWAAHAHAHA!

    We aren’t the only country with idiots. FREEDOM FRIES AWAY!

  69. 69.

    Richard Bottoms

    February 17, 2006 at 11:06 am

    Five days after the grenade attack, Lt. Call and his men from the 2nd platoon were planning an afternoon “hearts and minds” foot patrol to hand out soccer balls to local kids.

    As Call sat in the schoolhouse, preparing to go out, he heard two loud bursts from the .50-caliber machine gun on the roof.

    Specialist Michael Pena, a beefy 21-year-old from Port Isabel, Texas, had opened fire. Boom-boom-boom. Boom-boom-boom.

    Call and his men dashed out the front door. Pena had shot an unarmed Iraqi man on the street. The man had walked past the signs that mark the 200-yard “disable zone” that surrounds the Alamo and into the 100-yard “kill zone” around the base. The Army had forced the residents of the block to leave the houses last year to create the security perimeter.

    American units in Iraq usually fire warning shots. The Rakkasans don’t.

    A few days later, Call said his brigade command had told him, “The Rakkasans don’t do warning shots.” A warning shot in the vernacular of the Rakkasans, Call said, was a bullet that hit one Iraqi man while others could see.

    “That’s how you warn his buddy, is to pop him in the face with a kill shot?” Call said incredulously. “But what about when his buddy comes back with another guy … that and the other 15 guys in his family who you’ve made terrorists?”

    Looking at the man splayed on the ground, Call turned to his medic, Specialist Patrick McCreery, and asked, “What the f— was he doing?”

    McCreery didn’t answer. The man’s internal organs were hanging out of his side, and his blood was pouring across the ground. He was conscious and groaning. His eyelids hung halfway closed.

    “What … did they shoot him with?” McCreery asked, sweat beginning to show on his brow. “Did someone call a … ambulance?”

    The call to prayer was starting at a mosque down the street. The words “Allahu Akbar” – God is great – wafted down from a minaret’s speakers.

    The man looked up at the sky as he heard the words. He repeated the phrase “Ya Allah. Ya Allah. Ya Allah.” Oh God. Oh God. Oh God.

    He looked at McCreery and raised his finger toward the house in front of him.

    “This my house,” he said in broken English.

    McCreery reached down. With his hands cupped, he shoved the man’s organs back into his body and held them in place as Call unwrapped a bandage to put around the hole.

    “He’s fading, he’s fading,” McCreery shouted.

    Looking into the dying man’s eyes, the medic said, “Haji, haji, look at me,” using the honorific title reserved for older Muslim men who presumably have gone on Hajj – pilgrimage – to Mecca.

    “Why? Why?” asked the man, his eyes beginning to close.

    “Haji, I don’t know,” said McCreery, sweat pouring down his face.

    An Iraqi ambulance pulled up and the Humvees followed. They followed the man to the hospital they’d raided a few days earlier. The soldiers filed in and watched as the man died.

    Call said nothing. McCreery, a 35-year-old former foundry worker from Levering, Mich., walked toward a wall, alone. He looked at the dead man for a moment and wiped tears from his eyes.

    A few days later, Call’s commander asked him to take pictures of the entrails left by the man Pena had shot, identified as Wissam Abbas, age 31, to document that Abbas was inside the sign warning of deadly force.

    McHenry, who was driving, told him, “There’s not going to be much left, sir. The dogs will have eaten all of it.”

    Pena was up on the schoolhouse roof manning the same .50-caliber machine gun. He didn’t say a word about the man he’d killed. As he stared at a patch of earth in front of him, at Samarra and its wreckage, he couldn’t contain his frustration.

    “No one told me why I’m putting my life on the line in Samarra, and you know why they didn’t?” Pena asked. “Because there is no f—— reason.”

    http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13880387.htm

    Our glorious liberation has claimed yet another innocent Iraqi, blown apart by a .50 machine gun outside his own home.

    You voted for it, I didn’t.

    Have a nice day.

  70. 70.

    skip

    February 17, 2006 at 7:53 pm

    So, I see the French, who are cowardly weasels when they contest us, become philosopher kings when they agree with us.

    I wouldn’t believe this administration if they claimed seeing the sun rise in the east.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • Steeplejack on Acts of Kindness: Missed Connections Not So Missed (Jan 28, 2023 @ 12:41pm)
  • Starfish on Saturday Morning Open Thread: Human Rights & Human Dignity (Jan 28, 2023 @ 12:40pm)
  • Librarian on Saturday Morning Open Thread: Human Rights & Human Dignity (Jan 28, 2023 @ 12:39pm)
  • TaMara on Acts of Kindness: Missed Connections Not So Missed (Jan 28, 2023 @ 12:38pm)
  • Matt McIrvin on Saturday Morning Open Thread: Human Rights & Human Dignity (Jan 28, 2023 @ 12:38pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!