« Your daily dose of stupidity | Main | Jordan McCabe: We're gonna hear more about this kid »

Is the time for talking over?

Iran certainly seems to be suggesting they have no interest in continuing:

Talks on Iran's nuclear program held over the weekend between the Islamic Republic and six world powers have been deemed a failure.

The talks in Istanbul held between Iran and P5+1  - United Security Council permanent members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany - did not make progress in part because Iran came to the table with preconditions, including that it would not halt its uranium enrichment and wanted that right to be "recognized."

"This is not the conclusion I had hoped for. We had hoped to embark on a discussion of practical ways forward, and have made every effort to make that happen," European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said in Istanbul on Jan. 22. "We expect Iran to demonstrate a pragmatic attitude and to respond positively to our openness toward dialogue and negotiations. The door remains open, the choice remains in Iran's hands."

"It remains essential that Iran demonstrates that its (nuclear) program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. But so far the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has not been able to certify the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's program, given what the Agency states is a lack of sufficient cooperation by Iran," Ashton also said.

On Sunday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the failed talks, saying during a speech aired on live television that "They have talked for a few rounds, but we never expected that issues would be resolved during these few sessions because of the record and mentality of the other parties." He said he believed results would be achieved in future sessions.

Ahmadinejad also said that "the uncultured Zionists and some power-hungry people in Europe and the U.S. are not interested in a good resolution of the issues."

"You cannot make Iran back down an inch from its course as it is now a nuclear state," he concluded.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is suggesting that all this focus on talking is a waste of time:

Speaking at a London inquiry into the Iraq War where he was having to explain his decision to join the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, Blair said the time had now come to "get our heads out of the sand" and take action against Iran.

"I say this with all the passion I possibly can," said Blair, now an envoy for the Quartet of Middle East peacemakers -- the United States, Russia, the EU and the United Nations.

The West had to stop believing it was responsible for the actions of Iran or extremists, he said.

"The fact is they are doing it because they disagree fundamentally with our way of life and they'll carry on doing it unless they are met by the requisite determination and, if necessary, force."

Tony Blair, a man filled with wisdom.  Let's hope that the powers that be are listening.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40978.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is the time for talking over?:

» Brutally Honest linked with Is the time for talking over?

Comments (21)

Rick: "Is the time for t... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Rick: "Is the time for talking over?"

Where ya been? The time for talking was over 2 years ago. If we (and Israel) wait any longer the time for avoiding MASSIVE loss of life will be over as well.

As soon as Iran gets enough fuel for an atomic bomb they will construct it and test it...in Israel. They'd love to wait for a missile capable of delivering it, but they have several other means that would be at least as destructive!

Perhaps we should give Iran... (Below threshold)
James H:

Perhaps we should give Iran some shiny new computers? I hear the STUXNET model is quite nice.

James, that was a delaying ... (Below threshold)
epador:

James, that was a delaying tactic only that cost many lives and used up precious intelligence personnel. It was an act of desperation. See #1.

Time for bowing.... (Below threshold)
LeBron Steinman:

Time for bowing.

Get your knee pads on Barry... (Below threshold)
914:

Get your knee pads on Barry.

After being publicly humili... (Below threshold)
jim m:

After being publicly humiliated by the Chinese Barry should be ready to further abase himself and our nation before the Iranians.

Frankly I think he is just waiting for the Iranians to announce they have the bomb so he can officially repudiate any connection with the Israelis and his response when (not if) Iran nukes Tel Aviv will be a mild scolding if anything.

<a href="http://gatewaypund... (Below threshold)
jim m:

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/figures-pianist-plays-anti-american-pro-commie-song-at-white-house-state-dinner-video/

Yes the time for talking is over and (at least for obama) the time or boot licking has begun.

RE: "The fact is they are d... (Below threshold)
kevino:

RE: "The fact is they are doing it because they disagree fundamentally with our way of life and they'll carry on doing it unless they are met by the requisite determination and, if necessary, force."

Not happening. The failing West doesn't have the backbone. We told the useful idiots on the Left not to show weakness to Islamic fundamentalists, and they didn't listen. Now we have to live with the results, and one of them is a Nuclear Iran.

Stupid, weak people against a determined enemy.

Gasp! It's ALMOST like the... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Gasp! It's ALMOST like they've been STALLING FOR TIME!

Ya think?

Telephone call: "Hey Benjamin! Buddy! Shalom! Hey, we've been, you know, kicking the ol' ball around here in the White House and been wondering....ah....er....you still got those "Travel Plans to Iran"? Uhuh. Now suppose, just suppose that you could get your hands on some of those 'bunker busters' you've been asking for. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge."

How could anyone ever belie... (Below threshold)
hermie:

How could anyone ever believe that the Iranians were actually interested in negotiating? Their entire history since the fall of the Shah has been one of delay, bluff, threats and aggression.

The ones who did were the who claimed that the Iranians were decades away from a nuclear weapon. The ones who claimed they had plans for 'smart diplomacy'. The ones who thought that the Iranians were just bluffing.

These are the same ones who are now running the country and have been heading up the MSM.

Hey wingnuts, sign the fuck... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Hey wingnuts, sign the fuck up. The military could use a lot of brave souls such as yourselves. The ranks of the 101st Fighting Keyboard Kommandos were seriously depleted by the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Godspeed, heroes.

Hey HYPER, go for a long wa... (Below threshold)
Rodney:

Hey HYPER, go for a long walk off a short pier, I gave 20, what did you do other than use swear words and show off your stupidity?

Hyper -Why so angr... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Hyper -

Why so angry, bud? Shit - it's not like we're talking about castrating you or anything, we're talking about what Iran's going to do.

Do you think they're going to play nice and rational once they get a working nuclear warhead? I think they will - but it'll be THEIR version of logical, which may or may not have anything to do with ours.

Remember when Pakistan and India got nukes? I was a bit concerned, seeing the way they'd been going at it over the years... but once they realized that instead of their usual pissing contests they could do each other some serious damage, they figured they needed to get along a bit better.

But the thing with Iran is, Israel doesn't pay them any attention. Israel isn't threatening Iran. Iran seems to see Israel as an intolerable affront for merely existing.

(BTW, I gave 23 years, is that sufficient for me to be allowed an opinion on this?)

I think what's going to happen is that Iran will, if they figure they can, attempt to strike Israel. They'll fail, and the nuke will hit somewhere it's not supposed to.

(At which point, a double-secret Israeli Mossad plan to nuke the place that did get hit will be blamed if the nuke goes off high-order, and if it squibs it'll be 'proof' that Israeli nukes don't work.)

If the nuke doesn't go off - that'd be great, because 'something' will be recovered with loads of Hebrew lettering on it, ("We have set you up the bomb, make your time" or the equivalent)which will prove it was from Israel and not from Iran - radar tracks by Israel and the US in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf were obviously faked. If it does go off, well - sucks to be in the locality, and it'll still be blamed on Israel.

It's a win-win for Iran.

With all due respect, what ... (Below threshold)
James H:

With all due respect, what do people here suggest as a solution for Iran? Should the US invade? Should Israel? Should the US and Israel instead use airstrikes? Covert ops?

Hell if I know what'll solve things. Here in the United States, I seriously doubt that the American people are going to be enthusiastic about another war.

With all due respect, wh... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

With all due respect, what do people here suggest as a solution for Iran?

Nothing that has a snowball's chance of being considered, I think. That's one of the really great things about blogging, you can come up with solutions to all the world's problems... and they don't mean shit. But by proposing them, you feel a bit better and perhaps more in control of a situation that's way beyond the control or influence of anyone here.

But overall, we're in a rather peculiar position - with a determinedly anti-war, conciliatory president being faced with a situation where it MAY be necessary to respond with violence or risk being seen as completely ineffectual in the geopolitical arena. He's also managed to surround himself with the same sort of experts in the military/force projection sphere that he's managed to gather for business and financial expertise... in other words, folks who don't know enough about what they're doing to realize they don't know enough to fix what's wrong - but who WILL tell him his ideas are wonderful and workable.

What's the solution? Hell if I know either. It's a mess, it's more of a mess than it was a couple years back, and they're going to have a heck of a time with 'smart diplomacy' trying to fix it.

They will fail - because they're going to think that (1) Iran wants something it can be easily given and (2) Iran will keep its word when/if it gets what it wants and (3) Iran doesn't realize that they're gullible saps who are willing to trust whatever the Iranian leadership says... at least for a while and possibly long enough.

"Here in the United States, I seriously doubt that the American people are going to be enthusiastic about another war."

Where do you get the idea that ANYONE is enthusiastic about going to war - including the military?

It's not a football game, where you root for the team you prefer - it's a total failure of the diplomatic corps to PREVENT bloodshed, and something NOT to be desired.

Enthusiasm? More like "Oh, shit, not fucking again. Let's get this dealt with as fast as possible." Sometimes war is (as unpleasant as it may be) the least worst option. I'm very much hoping that there will be some sort of peaceful settlement to the Iranian problem - but I'm afraid what it's going to take will be an uprising that'll displace the Mullocracy and Ahmadinejad... which will open up even more trouble.

One thing I think WOULD help is if we stopped shipping loads of petrodollars overseas. The less money Iran's got to play with, the less trouble they'll be in the long run. I'd love to see Obama announce a serious energy-independence initiative, combining massive short-term drilling here in the US with expedited construction of nuclear power, with the intent to first become independent of foreign oil, and then do our best to switch to an all-electric infrastructure. (Long term plan, of course - a good 30-40 years for the transition.) Save oil for chemical feedstocks, have all transportation powered by electricity.

But that's pretty unlikely to happen.

Hey wingnuts, sign... (Below threshold)
Brett :
Hey wingnuts, sign the fuck up. The military could use a lot of brave souls such as yourselves. The ranks of the 101st Fighting Keyboard Kommandos were seriously depleted by the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Godspeed, heroes.

Hey, pinhead, I have spent the last ~30 years of my life making it possible to deal with problems like this with little or no loss of US personnel. I am pretty damned proud of it.

I certainly don't feel compelled to justify any of this to the likes of you. And I note that you don't have the guts to talk think that to any of *our* faces or even sign your own damn name.

JLawson:One point:... (Below threshold)
James H:

JLawson:

One point:

It's not a football game, where you root for the team you prefer - it's a total failure of the diplomatic corps to PREVENT bloodshed, and something NOT to be desired.

I know it's not a football game. By this line, I meant that I believe if a president and/or Congress carry us into war, that president and/or Congress would be voted out shortly.

I'm thinking in particular of polls leading up to the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. At the time, each of those military efforts enjoyed a great deal of public support. I'm not sure that support will be there for a military campaign against Iran.

"I'm not sure that suppo... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"I'm not sure that support will be there for a military campaign against Iran."

Fair point there, James. It might not be, but I think the deciding factor will be the event itself. If a portion of Israel gets nuked, it won't really matter much how it's spun by the folks who want to make sure Iran's blameless - there's going to be people of all sorts wanting a hard and fast (and noisy) response.

Conversely, there's going to be parts of the Arab world going "Hey, they did it to themselves to gain sympathy!" who would refuse to believe it if Ahmadinejad came on sat-tv and announced it proudly on all channels.

Of course, if a US city gets nuked all any President could do would be to turn into a raging hawk. It'd be expected, after all, and the people aren't going to be terribly impressed by 'nuance' or concilliatory posturing. (And all that would be needed would be one reported statement like "Well, we deserved it after Iraq and Afghanistan" and there'd be no recovering any sort of stature for the next election.)

"With all due respect, what... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"With all due respect, what do people here suggest as a solution for Iran?"

Well James, I think it quite obvious that what's been tried for the last 20 years hasn't worked. Hasn't worked in North Korea either.

Is there a past parallel in history about continued delay and appeasement?

Here's a thought. "Hey, Iran. Let the inspectors in, or we're going to drop a nuke on your nuclear plant. You have 36 hours to respond. No more talk. No more delay. You have 36 hours to respond. Have a nice day!"

But that would require world leaders to have a set of balls - and realize that a nuke armed Iran is in no one's best interest. MAD worked because both sides wanted to live. The idiots running Iran think the highest calling is to DIE for their religion.

Think about it.

"Of course, if a US city... (Below threshold)
John S:

"Of course, if a US city gets nuked all any President could do would be to turn into a raging hawk."

Unlike Israel, we still have the 25 megaton city killers that the Kennedy administration built. Perhaps you've seen the movie scene with Slim Pickens... that's the very bomb.

"Of course, if a US city... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Of course, if a US city gets nuked all any President could do would be to turn into a raging hawk."

John S - what I meant by that was that it wouldn't be possible for a President to go "You know, they're just having a bad day - we shouldn't be hasty and leap to the conclusion they don't like us or anything..." - it'd be time to go to war.

And send a W87 first, just to get their attention. Heck, send two in case the first isn't loud enough.

You're probably thinking of the Mk-41, wich had a 25 Mt yield. It was replaced by the Mk-53, with a 9 Mt yield, which was replaced by the B-61... which had a puny yield, less than the W87.

Hey, when you can improve your targeting, you don't need to go for overkill in the tonnage dept.

(All info above from the List of All US Nuclear Weapons from "NuclearWeaponsArchive.Org" I swear, you can find darn near anything on the intertubes...)




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy