NATO leader urges engagement with Iran

[Woodrow]

"We need a discussion that brings in all the relevant players: Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, Russia — and yes, Iran. We need a pragmatic approach to solve this very real challenge," de Hoop Scheffer said.




This could work. Well worth a try.

NATO leader urges engagement with Iran




By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer Slobodan Lekic, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 22 mins ago

BRUSSELS, Belgium – NATO must engage with Iran to secure regional support for the escalating war in neighboring Afghanistan, Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said Monday.

The surprise call from the head of the Western alliance comes as the new U.S. administration of President Barack Obama prepares to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan, where Taliban militants are regrouping and violence is on the rise.

They will reinforce the 62,000-strong NATO and U.S. force already operating there.

"We need to stop looking at Afghanistan as if it were an island," de Hoop Scheffer said in a speech to the Security and Defense Agenda, a Brussels-based think tank.

"Afghanistan's problems cannot be solved by or within Afghanistan alone," he said. "There is a regional network of extremists ... which respects borders no more than they respect human rights or the rule of law."

He said this would require adopting a broader approach that includes all of Afghanistan's neighbors.

"We need a discussion that brings in all the relevant players: Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, Russia — and yes, Iran. We need a pragmatic approach to solve this very real challenge," de Hoop Scheffer said.

Audience members asked de Hoop Scheffer to explain how Iran could be constructively brought into Afghanistan diplomacy, but he declined. "I'm not sure at this stage what form that would take," he said.

The NATO chief warned that Western forces must prevail in Afghanistan. A Taliban victory, he said, would be "a disaster for international security and a legacy we cannot leave our children."

Until now, the United States has sought to isolate the clerical regime in Iran from meddling in Afghanistan, although the Shiite nation has a long history of opposing Taliban rule there.

The differences between Washington and Tehran run deep. They include U.S. suspicions about Iran's nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats to annihilate Israel, and Tehran's support for Hamas.

For its part, Iran still considers the U.S. the "Great Satan." But in a possible indication that Iran is ready to improve relations with Washington, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said earlier this week his nation is "ready for new approaches by the United States."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/...jbhihNRUDGK7IF

[Keltoi]

The problem is that while these talks are going on, Iran is still seeking to weaponize their nuclear program. If Iran allows access and transparency with their nuclear enrichment program, to show they are not going ahead with their program while talks go on, then it is worth a try. If they do not stop their program, talks will accomplish nothing.

[S1aveofA11ah]

The problem is that while these talks are going on, Iran is still seeking to weaponize their nuclear program. If Iran allows access and transparency with their nuclear enrichment program, to show they are not going ahead with their program while talks go on, then it is worth a try. If they do not stop their program, talks will accomplish nothing.

Other countries like the US (who have already used nukes in Japan) are allowed to own them, so why can't Iran?

[Qingu]

Other countries like the US (who have already used nukes in Japan) are allowed to own them, so why can't Iran?

If the Ayatollah wants to make that argument, they should make it.

However, Iran's government has not made that argument. It has repeatedly denied that they are manufacturing nuclear weapons. It has said over and over that their nuclear program is for "peaceful purposes" only.

If Iran wants nuclear weapons, they should be open about it. As it happens, it looks like they are developing weapons in secret and are lying to the world community about it. Understandably, this makes the world community suspicious and paranoid about what they intend to use such weapons for.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[nocturnal]

If the Ayatollah wants to make that argument, they should make it.

However, Iran's government has not made that argument. It has repeatedly denied that they are manufacturing nuclear weapons. It has said over and over that their nuclear program is for "peaceful purposes" only.

If Iran wants nuclear weapons, they should be open about it. As it happens, it looks like they are developing weapons in secret and are lying to the world community about it. Understandably, this makes the world community suspicious and paranoid about what they intend to use such weapons for.

Iran has no intention of diverting vast amounts of money towards a nuclear weapons programme. Ahmadinejad has said himself, that Nuclear Weapons are no longer the potent threat that they used to be. It has indeed been complying fully with the IAEA and don't forget the recent US intelligence assistance report which absolved Iran of any nuclear ambitions which it declared categorically Iran had discontinued.

The EU itself has said it is committed to providing civilian nuclear assistance to Iran, which has every right to this under the Non Proliferation Treaty. It has made crucial headway in this regard and the EU engagement with Iran should be assiduously sustained. It is the US, which is scuppering any hopes of a deal with Iran in order to advance it's own geo-political agenda.

[Muezzin]

I hope the Obama administration is more open to talks than its predecessor. It's always worth a try.

[nocturnal]

By the way, Keltoi, Qingu and the rest from the "US is the great emancipator" school of thought.

Why is it that none of you ever critiques israel's shocking circumvention of the NPT with unremitting american support to arm and further militarize the entire Middle Eeast region and endanger whatever modicum stability exists there? It's blatant duplicity on your parts to relentlessly censure the political process of so called "extremist" regimes, when the biggest threat to world security and the provenance of contemporary terrorism today is the tandem of the US and Israel, and their concerted and demonic policies which have destablilised the entire region.

[Woodrow]

By the way, Keltoi, Qingu and the rest from the "US is the great emancipator" school of thought.

Why is it that none of you ever critiques israel's shocking circumvention of the NPT with unremitting american support to arm and further militarize the entire Middle Eeast region and endanger whatever modicum stability exists there? It's blatant duplicity on your parts to relentlessly censure the political process of so called "extremist" regimes, when the biggest threat to world security and the provenance of contemporary terrorism today is the tandem of the US and Israel, and their concerted and demonic policies which have destablilised the entire region.

Keep in mind the actions of Washington DC do not necessarily reflect the thoughts of all Americans. As the people voice their concerns, Washington changes it's tune. I believe the last election reflects the public demand for change.

[Qingu]

Iran has no intention of diverting vast amounts of money towards a nuclear weapons programme. Ahmadinejad has said himself, that Nuclear Weapons are no longer the potent threat that they used to be. It has indeed been complying fully with the IAEA and don't forget the recent US intelligence assistance report which absolved Iran of any nuclear ambitions which it declared categorically Iran had discontinued.

The EU itself has said it is committed to providing civilian nuclear assistance to Iran, which has every right to this under the Non Proliferation Treaty. It has made crucial headway in this regard and the EU engagement with Iran should be assiduously sustained. It is the US, which is scuppering any hopes of a deal with Iran in order to advance it's own geo-political agenda.

First of all, the report you are talking about does not "absolve" Iran of nuclear ambitions (though it obviously was a blowback for the Bush administration's idiotic rhetoric).

Secondly, if Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, why are they constantly stonewalling the IAEA? Why don't they just get nuclear assistance from European countries in a transparent manner? It's the rhetoric and the secrecy that freaks Westerners like me out.

By the way, Keltoi, Qingu and the rest from the "US is the great emancipator" school of thought.

Why is it that none of you ever critiques israel's shocking circumvention....

Nocturnal, I've said this in many posts already, and I don't know how to make it clearer. I do not believe the U.S. is the "great emancipator." I am entirely opposed to neoconservative foreign policy. And I don't support Israel.

Stop lumping me in with these people, dude. It's every bit as annoying as when Americans assume all Muslims are Arab-speaking terrorists.

[nocturnal]

If you read the IAEA's latest released reports on Iran, you will see that what is remaining, is only the impending implementation of certain additional protocols in Iran that is preventing the agency from declaring unreservedly that Iran has met sucessfully all the conditions to embark on a credible course for civilian nuclear purposes which is to be supervised by the agency itself.

This notion that somehow Iran is this evil nuclear weapon-seeking pariah state, run by a cabal of zealous theocrats with no respect for international law is just absurd. The reason Iran is villified is because it rejects israel and american support for it. Many other states too do not recognise israel, but still avoid engaging in heated rhetoric against it quite on the level that Tehran does because of american assistance which would be jeopardized.

Iran is not a threat, it is not occupying Palestinian, Syrian or Lebanese land, Israel is. Iran has never engaged in a unilateral provocative attack against a neighbour, Israel has repeatedly done so through out it's history. In Lebanon especially. Iran has never attacked installations in any other country, Israel does this wihout any compunction. It did so in Iraq in 1981 and more recently in Syria. Again, never has there ben any condemnation for this open aggression, let alone western condemnation.

An entire nation was displaced in 1948, with the creation of israel, but aside from making even a superficial attempt at reconciliation and paying reparations, this entity has engaged in a campaign to systematically liquidate whatever remains of the Palestinian national identity in the occupied areas and consign it to history and to those living in the diaspora.

If such an entrenched attitude of malevolence does not foster radicalism and extremism, then what will it generate? Obama recently declared in his interview with Al Arabiya, that israel's security is "paramount" to him and the US. Listen to the words he is using and the solemn manner in which he is asserting that the US is an avowed supporter of this regime which just butchered with impunity 1300 people in Gaza.

Clearly we do not have to await two presidential terms of the obama administration to elapse in order to realise that his vaunted promise of change is now utterly discredited.

[Woodrow]

I hope the Obama administration is more open to talks than its predecessor. It's always worth a try.

This looks promising

(AP) President Barack Obama's administration will engage in "direct diplomacy" with Iran, the newly installed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Monday. Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...=World_4753652

[The_Prince]

If the Ayatollah wants to make that argument, they should make it.

However, Iran's government has not made that argument. It has repeatedly denied that they are manufacturing nuclear weapons. It has said over and over that their nuclear program is for "peaceful purposes" only.

If Iran wants nuclear weapons, they should be open about it. As it happens, it looks like they are developing weapons in secret and are lying to the world community about it. Understandably, this makes the world community suspicious and paranoid about what they intend to use such weapons for.

perhaps the ayatollah doesnt have to make any argument and can keep things completely secret, why should he come out with the program???? can you name me nations who actually come out about their nuclear program? did USA do that? did Israel? did Pakistan???? what nation has ever come out openly saying yeah were doing nukes here you go, this is all our info....hence your proposal of the ayatollah to come out and admit it is so silly it doesnt even make sense, nor has any other nuclear nation come out openly and admited it was making nukes.

Israel is constantly never admitting they have nukes, nor have they admited they had a nuclear program, so by your own logic the world and yourself should be very very very paranoid about their intentions, yet i see you say nothing, you support and fund them like no other, hence stop being a 2 faced hypocrite.

just come out openly and say we dont want Iran to have a nuke because their Muslim, and we dont want Muslims to have any power, but we want them to be our little slaves whom we can push over anytime we want, so i think if anyone should come out to admit anything, it would be you and your people.

so the ayatollah can come out and make an argument saying they dont have to say nothing about this program just like the other nations kept silent, and he will still have a point.

stop asking the Iranians to do things that you yourselves never adhered to.

[Qingu]

perhaps the ayatollah doesnt have to make any argument and can keep things completely secret, why should he come out with the program???? can you name me nations who actually come out about their nuclear program? did USA do that? did Israel? did Pakistan????

I see. So you think that anything Israel or the United States does is okay for other countries to do.

And here I thought you were all anti-Israel and anti-America.

just come out openly and say we dont want Iran to have a nuke because their Muslim, and we dont want Muslims to have any power, but we want them to be our little slaves whom we can push over anytime we want, so i think if anyone should come out to admit anything, it would be you and your people.

The thought of nukes in the hands of apocalyptic religious extremists like the Shi'a who rule Iran does make me quite nervous. I would worry that they would want to pre-emptively use a nuclear weapon to prepare the way for the Mahdi's return—much like how idiot evangelical Christians in America support Zionism only because they think it will hasten the End of the World. People who want to quickly bring about a religious apocalypse should probably not have nuclear weapons.

However, I think it's incredibly hypocritical for America to dictate who can have nuclear weapons when we are the only country to ever use them. Again, what bothers me more than Iran having nukes is Iran being secretive and lying about their nukes.

Note: I am also extremely bothered by Israel having secret nukes and I think it's just as likely that Israel will start World War III as Iran. (Don't let that stop you from calling me an evil Zionist infidel though.)

stop asking the Iranians to do things that you yourselves never adhered to.

This may surprise you, Prince, but I've never lied about owning nuclear weapons.

Prince—do you like it when people assume all Muslims are terrorists? I don't like it when people assume all Westerners are neocons or Zionists. This is the third or fourth time I've asked you. Stop overgeneralizing.

[Keltoi]

It isn't just the United States that is concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions. The key for accepted nuclear weapons programs is political stability. Unstable regimes that make aggressive suggestions about the destruction of a neighbor are not seen as prime candidates for nuclear weapons tech.

[S1aveofA11ah]

I think the underlying question in this matter is : Are nuclear weapons even permitted Islamically?.

I think that needs to be addressed first as in times of war Islam clearly states that non-combatants, children, women, monks, cattle, trees and probably a whole host of other things CANNOT be destroyed.

This is of course a question to put to the Scholars of Islam not the layman. Would be interesting to know if anyone has researched this...

[nocturnal]

I think the underlying question in this matter is : Are nuclear weapons even permitted Islamically?.

I think that needs to be addressed first as in times of war Islam clearly states that non-combatants, children, women, monks, cattle, trees and probably a whole host of other things CANNOT be destroyed.

This is of course a question to put to the Scholars of Islam not the layman. Would be interesting to know if anyone has researched this...

Good point, i didn't think of that. :?

[Woodrow]

I think the underlying question in this matter is : Are nuclear weapons even permitted Islamically?.

I think that needs to be addressed first as in times of war Islam clearly states that non-combatants, children, women, monks, cattle, trees and probably a whole host of other things CANNOT be destroyed.

This is of course a question to put to the Scholars of Islam not the layman. Would be interesting to know if anyone has researched this...

I have not researched it and I am not a scholar. I am just wanting to say I agree with your comment.

[Muezzin]

I think the underlying question in this matter is : Are nuclear weapons even permitted Islamically?.

I think that needs to be addressed first as in times of war Islam clearly states that non-combatants, children, women, monks, cattle, trees and probably a whole host of other things CANNOT be destroyed.

This is of course a question to put to the Scholars of Islam not the layman. Would be interesting to know if anyone has researched this...

On the face of it, they shouldn't be permitted Islamically. Nor should any form of explosive for that matter, and perhaps guns, if we're to get very literal about things.

But in warfare, people of all creeds tend to only take things literally if doing so allows revenge.

[doorster]

I have not researched it and I am not a scholar. I am just wanting to say I agree with your comment.

Is suicide haraam?
Is comunal suicide halal?

just imagine that Pakistan was a small Muslim country carved out of a bigger country against their will by a third country and you were in-charge of it.

now imagine that as soon as third country leave the scene, the bigger country wants to re-unite thus tries to destroy your population until you acquire nuclear power

how many wars and (dead Pakistanis(dont count deaths at hands of sectarian or terrorist killers)) were there before and after the acquisition of nuclear Arms?

[fairandbalanced]

By the way, Keltoi, Qingu and the rest from the "US is the great emancipator" school of thought.

Why is it that none of you ever critiques israel's shocking circumvention of the NPT with unremitting american support to arm and further militarize the entire Middle Eeast region and endanger whatever modicum stability exists there? It's blatant duplicity on your parts to relentlessly censure the political process of so called "extremist" regimes, when the biggest threat to world security and the provenance of contemporary terrorism today is the tandem of the US and Israel, and their concerted and demonic policies which have destablilised the entire region.

Nocturnal;

Israel did not "circumvent" the NPT...they did not sign it and are therefore not bound by it. That is what a "treaty' means. It is a bilateral or multilateral agreement. If you dont' sign it you are not bound by it.

Where did you get the other stuff....Noam Chomsky... or was it translated from a Hugo Chavez speech?

[nocturnal]

Fair enough fairand balanced, they did not sign it. But the fact remains, that it is incumbent upon all nations to sign up to the NPT, but israel as a member of the UN IS bound by UN protocol is it not? and the IAEA is the agency tasked with regulating nuclear activities by the UN and therefore by the international community right? does israel even contemplate this for a second? no. But when it comes to denouncing Iran and it's civilian nuclear programme, they're the first ones to launch into diatribes against Iran with all sorts of erroneous accusations which are totally unfounded.

And im not really an expert in semantics, but by circumvent i did literally mean that they avoided signing it. A treaty that it is morally obligatory for every nation to be a signatory to. Those who do possess potent, nuclear capacities, the immediacy of which cannot be ignored, such as israel, must disclose the full extent of its capacity and immedieately establish a regime to facilitate the inspection of its facilities by IAEA inspectors. Just as Iran is complying.