http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/07/negotiators-again-extend-deadline-in-iran-nuclear-talks/?intcmp=latestnews
My inside sources tell me that Kerry has agreed to Iranian demands to drop Secretary of Energy Ernist Moniz and Lady Catherine Ashton from his negotiating team because the Iranians couldn't stand looking at them for one more day.
Need I say more?
7 comments:
We have been extending deadlines for at least a year now. This is like that line in the Syrian sand.
If a deal isn't done, the right thing to do is to keep talking. What's the problem?
(Oh, right, those of you who are carping don't want a deal at all. So just say that.)
Nothing necessarily wrong with a truly good deal, which does not have (excuse me) a "Chinaman's chance" of happening. The problem with talking ad infinitum is that Iran is no doubt working feverishly on its nuke/WMD program as we speak, such that even if some agreement is somehow reached in the far future, it will be much further down the pike and the remaining mechanics of nukes will be much easier.
Siarlys,
Why not keep talking? Maybe the per diem costs of keeping Kerry and that crazy looking sec of energy in Vienna is too high. How about our honor?
Believe it or not elwood, the options available to the United States are far from unlimited. Any overt military option will engulf the country in a lengthy, bitter, bloody, expensive war that would draw a quick demand from Grover Norquist to cry uncle. To militarily occupy Iran would cost a good half of what WW II cost us. It mighy go on forever. We do have allies in the region, of a sort, but they are the same allies who may have covertly supported al Qaeda, and would be waiting to stab us in the back at an opportune moment.
When you are walking through a minefield, you consider every step very carefully... unless you prefer the Red Army approach, which was to link arms and run across the minefield, figuring you'd lose as many men pausing as you would blown up by the mines.
Remove the mullahs from power today, you still have an aspiring Iranian population, desiring the fruits of modernity, but also proud of their re-emergence as a nation, who would fight any invasion. As far a nuclear power is concerned, the cat is out of the bag, like it or not. Pakistan is a bigger danger than Iran, and they already have nukes. Are we going to militarily occupy Pakistan? Why not?
Ahhh yes, yet another extended deadline.
Nobody said it was easy. One thing that could happen with continued, even more severe, sanctions is that the Iranians themselves might eventually find the wherewithal to remove the mullahs, with or without assistance. We did pretty good in our Revolution. No war in Iran, at least by us. No occupation. A new Iranian government might, or then again might not, continue the country's nuclear ambitions. If it did, then we would be exactly where we are today, no better, but no worse. Might even end up with some people you could reason with, what with all the moderate Muslims out there.
Remind me... what sanctions did France and Spain impose on the American colonies that motivated us to throw off our colonial rulers, when we had no incentive at all until then?
Was it... the French cut off our supply of tea, and when we declared independence, a big shipload came into Boston Harbor and they had a big party to celebrate that we could drink the stuff freely again?
Or what?
Post a Comment