Iran rejects talks

Well, it looks like we’re going to war with Iran.

The sad thing is that the hideously incompetent administration has actually gotten me on the side of Iran. We rattle sabers, they want to talk. We rattle some more, they still just want to talk. We then basically demand they give in to our will before we’ll talk, and they tell us to go fuck ourselves.

Isn’t this the same thing as offering to talk about whether or not to have sex, provided the girl screws you first? And the worst part is that they are playing it so well, pointing out accurately that it is our duty, according to the NPT, to help them develop peaceful nuclear power.

On the other hand, there’s a lot of expert analysis that says they are already enriching uranium in a weapons-only fashion, but again due to the mind-boggling dishonesty of the current administration, I have to doubt that it isn’t a bunch of Cheney shills cranking out false reports.

I don’t know who to hate anymore.


I still think we should shave the heads of everyone in the Bush administration and look for a “666” tattoo.

Did Bush and Cheney also force Mad Man Mahmoud to deny the Holocaust and call for the destruction of Israel dozens of times over the past year? I can’t stand the current US admin, either, but c’mon, show some perspective – the Iranian government is the worst regime on the planet, and has openly announced genocidal intentions again and again.

Really? It sounds like you’ve already decided. Also:

Goddamned incompetant US Administration!

But if you’re legitimately siding with the Iranians on this one, here’s some training to get you started.

Right, show some perspective. Iran is the worst regime on the planet, eh? Worse than Sudan, Libya, Eritrea, Mozambique, Nigeria, Yemen, Cambodia, Laos, Congo, etc . . .

That’s the kind of hyperbolic justification for another killfest that got us into Iraq. Which, for the record, was positively kick-ass among its neighbors when we wrecked the place.

I’m all for calling a spade a spade, but being a dictatorship isn’t sufficient reason to invade somebody, unless they are the WORST dictatorship (Libya, currently) or the most DANGEROUS dictatorship (N. Korea.) It can be a nice addition, but you can’t say “We justify war because we are spreading freedom and democracy” and then go kick number 35’s ass. You need more.

Look, all I’m asking for is that we make an actual effort to deal with the situation, rather than fabricate a bunch of flimsy justifications for whatever the voice in Bush’s head is telling him to do currently. Maybe Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, I don’t know. And we’ll never know unless they let us in there, which they have repeatedly offered to do if we would work with them on peaceful power generation, as per the treaty.

It’s not preferable, and I asked my fern just to make sure, to refuse to discuss anything with someone in favor of killing them and then searching, a la Iraq.


How do you figure Libya is the worst (by that, I assume most repressive/destructive) dictatorship? By that measure I’d give the award to North Korea as well; running concentration camps and refining thought control into a worship of your leader as a deity while occasionally starving your people to death should qualify.

Iran isn’t technically a dictatorship. Ahmadinejad was elected.

Oh, and since this post was made it looks like talks are going to happen after all.

They got the lowest score on a human rights rankings, I believe from Amnesty Intl., even though we’re pretty chummy with them currently. Where’d you see the acceptance?


So let’s see…
We’re going to go over there and threaten them with the same Bombs that we told them they couldn’t build, right???


Not mentioned in that story: one of our conditions for talking to them is that they completely stop all development. Surprise, surprise, they “rejected” the “talks.”

Idiot media.

If you’ve ever been to the UN, you’d realise that “talks” in many cases is simply a time-wasting maneuver.

That’s the point I was trying to make, we put a condition on the talks that would effectively “win” the talks for us in the first place. Which leads me to believe that someone, somewhere is starting to build a case for preemptive war. Either that, or we don’t have anyone in office that would recognize the logical fallacy of our offer.


Could you not drink the Kool-aid just once? Iran isn’t the worst regime on the planet by a country mile, and we’re allied with far worse.

Most articles I’ve read have correctly indicated that the US agreeing to face-to-face talks, regardless of the imposed conditions, is a big shift in US policy. This by itself is a pretty good indicator that the US is not interested in invading them right now. The US just dangled the carrot of possibly reestablishing ties with Iran if they agreed to give up their nuclear program. That’s huge.

This is a good foreign policy move (possibly a first for the Bush administration). We just made a big concession, albeit with a big caveat. This should at least force Iran to make a counteroffer where they have to give something up. It also gives us some leverage with our allies who have been pushing for this for a while. Now that we’ve agreed in principle to talk to Iran, they’re going to have to get on board passing some stiff sanctions if Iran never comes to the table.

He said that the “Israeli occupation force” should be destroyed. Once. He means it, but that’s not calling for genocide. That’s not threatening genocide. That’s not even threatening to attack. People all over the world, every day, chant “death to America”, but they don’t do anything about it.

Iran almost certainly wants the bomb, but the chances of them dropping it on Israel are practically zero. They do next to nothing to help the Palestinians now, why would they risk their own destruction to help them out once they become a nuclear power?

It’s nothing but talk.

Their main objective, just like every dictator and tyrant on the planet, is to stay in power. Nuclear weapons guarantee that they won’t be bothered by anyone else ever again. No more invasions from Iraq or the US. No more threats of bombing raids from Isreal.

Nobody likes Iran, but with nuclear weapons they no longer have to care.

Talk is cheap! We need more oil, er, nuclear nonproliferation now!

Welcome, new recruit to the Andrew M army!

Edit: er, year-old but rarely posting recruit, rather. Whatever.

Why does everyone focus on Ahmadinejad just because his title is President? He’s not the leader of Iran, Khomeini is. Khomeini can pick, though proxies he appoints, who can and cannot be elected to government. He essentially appoints the Judiciary. He’s the commander in chief of the army and the only one that can declare war. So Khomeini basically is the dictator of Iran.

Khamenei. Khomeini is dead.

I was thinking much the same thing. I’ll bet there are plenty of folks in Darfur who would give their left arm for a permanent vacation in Iran.

Actually speculation is that power is shifting to the secular/elected wing of the government thanks in large part to Ahmadinejad’s popularity and firebreathing.

When Khatami was President, your description was true; Khatami was a moderate outside of the Iranian government’s mainstream who eventually lost his only asset - popularity - when his supporters realized he was completely powerless.

The next election was between Ayatollah Rafsanjani, an ex-President who just happens to be literally the wealthiest person in Iran - no corruption there, nosirree bob! - and Khatami’s designated successor. They both lost, and Ahmadinejad literally came from nowhere to win. At this point he was considered a rube who the people liked, and the real power struggle would be between Khameini (or mor e accurately the conservative theocracy behind him; Khameini is supposedly a figurehead) and Rafsanjani, who continued to maneuver for power. In response the clerics let Ahmadinejad run amuck center stage, where he proceeded to froth at the mouth, threaten to eat Israeli babies and all the other niceties we’re knowing and loving.

In the middle of all this; Iran’s nuke program. Ahmadinejad made this basically the benchmark of his regime; it fit into the profile of “challenging the heathen West”. This all is (sadly) very popular with the Iranian people, and the clerical establishment prefers Ahmadinejad (who is pious to the point of thinking Judgement Day is liable to happen next Tuesday) to the painfully-obviously-corrupt and thus unpopular Rafsanjani.

Khatami’s stillborn reform regime proved that popular mandates aren’t everything in Iran, but Ahmadinejad’s support combined with his acting as a stalking horse for the conservative anti-reform clergy makes him powerful - and the Iranian presidency less of a pro forma office.