Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 29, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar
Dissent: Voices of Conscience

Dissent: Voices of Conscience

By Colonel (Ret.) Ann Wright and Susan Dixon
$15.00

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

North Korea Deal a ‘Template’ for Iran

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 13, 2007

The Bush administration hopes its deal with North Korea will serve as a “template” for Iran, but convincing Tehran to abandon its nuclear program won’t be a walk in the park. Unlike North Korea, Iran has no use for energy aid and has managed to outmaneuver the U.S. in several regional conflicts.

The administration appears to have adopted a carrot-and-stick approach to Iran, hinting at military intervention while promoting the success of diplomacy with North Korea. So far, Iran has not flinched at Bush’s veiled threats and manages to derive internal and regional support from its antagonistic relationship with the United States.


Reuters:

The United States on Tuesday held out as a model for Iran a deal under which North Korea will take steps toward giving up nuclear arms, and analysts said it might bolster Iranians who favor talks with the West.

White House spokesman Tony Snow called the deal a “template,” but some analysts cautioned that the United States would have less leverage with Iran than with impoverished, communist North Korea.

Under an agreement struck in Beijing, Pyongyang will freeze the reactor at the heart of its nuclear program and allow inspections of the site. The pact could bring the impoverished communist state some $300 million in aid.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Big Al, February 14, 2007 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Marshall:

Don’t give me that party line crap.

“And finally, the US has never expressed its intent to destroy Iran and has stated it has no intention of attacking.”

Oh really, my dear Simon Bar Marshall? Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?

Look. Just read Scott Ritter’s “Target Iran”; then you’ll understand what the REAL Israeli/US position is.

Report this

By Marshall, February 14, 2007 at 1:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The Israeli/US position toward Iran is, “We don’t believe you - even though we can’t provide any firm evidence that you have a nuclear weapons program, and neither can the IAEA. In fact, no matter what you say, we don’t believe you, so we’re going to invade and destroy you.””

Your paragraph is totally fabricated.  First, the US position is unified with the UN (yeah, that means France too), so this isn’t a “US/Israeli” position.  Second, the IAEA has expressed its strong suspicions of Iran as well including examples of weapons grade nuclear material found at their sites and Iran has failed to comply with legitimate UN resolutions.  Third, Iran has been offered an excellent package if it only agrees to suspend enrichment whilst talks take place - a formula used successfully with other countries in the past.  And finally, the US has never expressed its intent to destroy Iran and has stated it has no intention of attacking.

Report this

By Big Al, February 14, 2007 at 9:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The US/Israeli position is that Iran must not be allowed to enrich uranium at all, even for peaceful purposes. The NPT guarantees all countries the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

Has North Korea agreed to give up its right to enrich uranium even for peaceful nuclear power generation? The article doesn’t say. That omission by itself makes the article’s comparison between Iran and North Korea so inadequate as to be asinine.

All we know is: NK agrees to give up its nuclear weapons program. Fine.

But please, how is this a “template” for Iran? Iran ALREADY agrees not develop nuclear weapons. And Iran is ALREADY fully open to inspections.

The Israeli/US position toward Iran is, “We don’t believe you - even though we can’t provide any firm evidence that you have a nuclear weapons program, and neither can the IAEA. In fact, no matter what you say, we don’t believe you, so we’re going to invade and destroy you.”

The US/Israeli neocons have agreed to this deal with NK for one reason: to tidy up this matter and get it off their desks as they gear up for their vicious onslaught against Iran.

Report this

By WCG, February 14, 2007 at 8:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Iran’s economy is really hurting. They might not need the same energy aid as North Korea, but they do need help. The fact that Iran has done so well politically because of Bush’s mistakes might make them even more likely to negotiate. They might see it as a win/win situation. There’s no reason they can’t have nuclear power, as long as the enrichment is done elsewhere. (Of course, Ahmadinejad DOES want nuclear weapons, but that’s not universally popular in Iran.) The biggest problem is the current leaders in both countries, but that’s just a temporary situation.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.