Another problem with turbans and hijabs:
You can't see when you're backing into a corner
Less than eight hours after the Bush administration added its support to Europe's plan to allow Iran a civilian nuclear program, the intransigent terrorist state has announced that it is rejecting the proposal anyway. It "does not meet Iran's minimum expectations," says Iran's foreign minister--expectations which apparently include mushroom clouds over New York, London, and Paris, at a minimum.
At issue is whether Iran gets to enrich its own uranium and keep the spent fuel from a "peaceful" nuclear power program, fuel which can have highly unpeaceful applications. Europe's proposal is that the Russians (who clearly need the dough) will build them a nuclear reactor and supply the fuel for it, each time retrieving the spent rods before installing the new. In a surprise move yesterday, the U.S. said the Paris agreement would do, and this despite the fact that it appears the more sophisticated roadside bombs being used against U.S. and Iraqi forces are coming out of Iran. In a fine display of naivete, the Times report on this revelation plays down the possibility of official Iranian involvement in efforts to destabilize Iraq, because "it would be counter to their interests to support Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgents." What piffle. To the Iranian mullahs, the government shaping up in Baghdad is in no way the Shiite-dominated puppet for which they'd hoped. For them, no government is preferable to one that divides power between their allies and their enemies.
U.S. backing for the Paris agreement didn't do it much good. Apparently this is not really about the somewhat strange necessity for civilian nuclear power in a nation blessed with more fossil fuel than it knows what to do with. It is about the right of Iran's theocratic thugs to do whatever they want, whenever they want. In a press conference translated by MEMRI TV this week, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman responded to a reporter's question about the planned return to uranium enrichment with a simple, "What do you care?" Now how come Scott McClellan never thought of that?
At issue is whether Iran gets to enrich its own uranium and keep the spent fuel from a "peaceful" nuclear power program, fuel which can have highly unpeaceful applications. Europe's proposal is that the Russians (who clearly need the dough) will build them a nuclear reactor and supply the fuel for it, each time retrieving the spent rods before installing the new. In a surprise move yesterday, the U.S. said the Paris agreement would do, and this despite the fact that it appears the more sophisticated roadside bombs being used against U.S. and Iraqi forces are coming out of Iran. In a fine display of naivete, the Times report on this revelation plays down the possibility of official Iranian involvement in efforts to destabilize Iraq, because "it would be counter to their interests to support Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgents." What piffle. To the Iranian mullahs, the government shaping up in Baghdad is in no way the Shiite-dominated puppet for which they'd hoped. For them, no government is preferable to one that divides power between their allies and their enemies.
U.S. backing for the Paris agreement didn't do it much good. Apparently this is not really about the somewhat strange necessity for civilian nuclear power in a nation blessed with more fossil fuel than it knows what to do with. It is about the right of Iran's theocratic thugs to do whatever they want, whenever they want. In a press conference translated by MEMRI TV this week, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman responded to a reporter's question about the planned return to uranium enrichment with a simple, "What do you care?" Now how come Scott McClellan never thought of that?
posted by tompain at 9:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home