Well, yeah.....that's what "diplomacy" is actually....Tehran is working like crazy to avoid heavy sanctions....and keep the nuke option open to keep invasion at bay.....and U.S. wants to prevent actual nuclear weapons AND delivery systems from coming on line, and keep Israel at bay, Russian is string everyone along to remain a world player, and keep Iran inside the tent pissing out instead of outside the tent pissing in (since Russia actually HAS a border with Iran) Europe is stringing Tehran along to keep the natural gas and heating oil flowing and no more weapons within striking distance of Europe, the Chinese are stringing EVERYONE along in their bid to move up the Superpower of the 21st Century ladder....Israel is stringing U.S. along to keep the money rolling in, and to keep the nukes from falling into Israel while trying to continue to keep the Muslim's outa any power in Israel....keep the heat other places then them and the Palestinians....I think a better question would be...who ISN"T string who along?

Damn!! Pat you're even more of a cynic than I am....and that's saying a lot.

Nowhere in any of this did you explain how America is stringing Tehran along, which of course is sheer stupidity. We, led by President Obama now, want them to not get nukes, this isn't stringing anything out.

The dictatorship is playing the democracies as usual, the normal UN kind of thing.

You didn't mention that everybody is stringing the US along, hoping that the rationality that was supposed to kick in with the election of a rational executive will kick in soon. There have been signs, such as scuttling the star wars thing in Poland and the Czech Republic, but we need more.

Long live the Empire!

Uh, huh. And what terrible thing is supposed to happen if Iran actually gets a few nukes? The same thing that has happened when the USSR, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan and Israel have got nukes. Nothing. A cushion against invasion; is that really so bad?

Only one nation has done bad things with nuclear weapons and that was a long time ago.

agreeing on things it won't be any fun any more.

Long live the Empire!

Iran is a religiously fanatic regime ruled by messianic mullahs who have already promised to destroy Israel. If they have nukes there stands a good chance they will use them, regardless of them committing suicide as a nation via Isreal's certain last gasp massive nuclear assualt. They may even use one against us. Though they stand little chance of developing accurate ICBM's in the near future it wouldnt be tough to put a bomb in a freighter and detonate it in NY harbor.

The risk of a nuclear war being the outcome of Iran obtaining nukes is there. Even if Iran merely wants insurance against invasion THAT would be bad because it would make Iran a regional superpower in the very region where we get most of our oil imports. This would be a very bad strategic outcome for us. Our govt should do anything possible to advance our own strategic intererests and this neccessarily means preventing bad strategic outcomes. Iraq was Irans only invasion threat and that threat ended when we destroyed Saddam's regime. We arent going to invade or even attack Iran so long as Iran behaves. Only a dolt or someone childishly naive would want to remove a check on Irans misbehavior. Iran is a known backer of terrorism.

If Iran wanted to attack Israel it would have done so by now. Bill Sullivan is either lying or living in delusion if he cannot see this. Let's face it, bill is at least as fanatical as any Iranian. Proof- he wants to attack Iran; ask him.

Of course if bill sullivan was president he wouldn't attack Iran, no more than Bush did and no more than Iran has attacked Israel. These mullahs and bill sullivan are windbags; all blustering talk with no action that would actual incur the slightest hint of personal risk to themselves.

"If Iran wanted to attack Israel it would have done so by now."

Lil' buddy,

Iran has been attacking Israel relentlessly since the founding of the Islamic Republic 30 years ago. It does not necessarily follow that the country would automatically commit mass murder-suicide by launching nukes at Israel the moment it got them, but for Israel and the world not to be alarmed by their obtaining them is foolish.

The real worry is a pact which is clearly showing itself alread between Iran and Russia (one I've been predicting since the fall of the Berlin Wall), wherein they will together control the world's oil market and hence the world economy.

That should make everyone shudder. I see a lot of very seriously bad fall-out in the short term.

Iran has been attacking Israel relentlessly since the founding of the Islamic Republic 30 years ago. It does not necessarily follow that the country would automatically commit mass murder-suicide by launching nukes at Israel the moment it got them.

I see. So...how many Iranian soldiers have been killed while attacking Israel? Must be a bunch if it was really a relentless 30 year attack.

I hope you don't mean that Iran supplying Israel's enemies with weapons constitutes an attack. If that were true then by the same logic, the USA has been relentlessly attacking Palestinians for the past 60 years by supplying Israel.

The real worry is a pact which is clearly showing itself alread between Iran and Russia (one I've been predicting since the fall of the Berlin Wall), wherein they will together control the world's oil market and hence the world economy. That should make everyone shudder.

Everyone but Russians and Iranians and their allies, I think you mean. Naturally you want global economic domination to remain in USA hands. But I see no moral objection which can be made against other nations attempting to do what the US has already done. A simple conflict in interests, but most dangerous for those obsessively driven to always choosing up sides and labelling enemies.

"I hope you don't mean that Iran supplying Israel's enemies with weapons constitutes an attack."

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. But even more than just supplying weapons, Iran, having written the destruction of Israel into its very charter, has directed, funded, trained, organized, provided weapons (from small arms, to bombs to missiles) and intelligence and every bit of resources at its disposal to helping Hezbollah rain death on Israel for the past three decades. Hezbollah is a virtual extension of the Iranian government.

"If that were true then by the same logic, the USA has been relentlessly attacking Palestinians for the past 60 years by supplying Israel."

When I wrote my first post to you I was thinking more of the US support of the Contras in Nicaragua, which is a more fitting parallel to what Iran has been doing with Hezbollah. (Also, be aware that for about the first 25 years it was mostly France and Britain who provided the bulk of weapons to Israel. It was only when Nixon came around and the Isr-Pal conflict became a proxy for the West's internal culture war that the US got solidly behind Israel.)

"Everyone but Russians and Iranians and their allies, I think you mean."

Yep.

"Naturally you want global economic domination to remain in USA hands."

The US dominates in an open system. The Europeans, Japanese, Chinese and Indians are giving the US a run for its money. The US "domination" (read, "global capitalism") has revolutionized the formerly destitute countries in the Third World. As a corollary, the open markets have opened many societies and political systems throughout the world. Please review the modern history of such places as Vietnam and Chile as examples. That is not the kind of results we can expect a world economy dominated by the Iran-Russia Union.

"But I see no moral objection which can be made against other nations attempting to do what the US has already done."

It's not about "morality." Those are your words, not mine.

"A simple conflict in interests, but most dangerous for those obsessively driven to always choosing up sides and labelling enemies."

The changes I'm pointing to are not about "right" vs. "wrong," though a very strong moral case can be made for the types of world economy the US has created vs. what the Iran-Russia Union will create, but that's for another discussion. It is indeed about "a simple conflict of interests."

You and your loved ones, and society, and even your "familiy" are on one side of that conflict, lil' pal, and that's why you need to pay attention to what becomes of that conflict.

Curious. What changes, if any, do you see coming from Iran getting nuclear weapons? I don't see all bad, by the way, but I'd be interested in hearing what you expect to happen if they go nuclear.

So, I am to believe that only citizens of the USA and its allies retain the possibility of "the good life". Early Bird, I really do think you believe this and it underlies all your pro-USA bias. Not much can be done about that, I guess.

It appears you feel an economic system, by itself, can generate wealth in some magic way, independent of natural and human resource exploitation. You seem blind to the 3rd world source of this wealth and how the several hundred years of exploitation by Euro-derived nations is now receiving backlash.

Regarding the results of Iran becoming nuclear, I've repeatedly stated the gross, immediate result would be- nothing. Of course they won't use them, so they would sit, and that would be that.

In the long term, I'd like to suggest an analogy with the principle that most times a position or office will shape the man. Becoming US President has slowly transformed each one into a more dignified, cautious, statesman-like person. Didn't see Clinton playing sax on Arsenio Hall in his second presidential campaign. And even frat-boy Governor Bush was not such a public buffoon in his final years.

Likewise, if Iran becomes a nuclear power they will be freed from the juvenile fear of invasion and humbling third world status and feel they have the right to move toward mature world leadership status. They will cease being such a "rogue" nation, cease needing to use a petty anti-Israel stance to establish Muslim legitimacy and start finding the benefits of cautious cooperation with other world powers as an equal. If they choose Russia...hey, its a free count...erm...world, right?

"So, I am to believe that only citizens of the USA and its allies retain the possibility of "the good life"."

Not at all. As I pointed out, the global capitalist system which the US has been at the forefront of ushering in (along with much of the rest of world and lots of new technology) has done more to lift the average person in the developing world out of horrid, grinding poverty than anything else in the world, bar none. I want that to continue for all of humanity's sake.

"Early Bird, I really do think you believe this and it underlies all your pro-USA bias. Not much can be done about that, I guess."

Oh, I'm guilty of taking an interest in my way of life, that of my country's, my loved ones, etc. You bet. I plead terribly guilty to having a "pro-USA bias." I believe that "my side" does well when the rest of the world does well, and we thrive when our fellow man thrives too.

(Of course, I don't expect you to be biased even towards the welfare of your very own children. If a semi-truck was bearing down on them in the middle of the street it wouldn't get a rise out of you. You are utterly stuck in neutral.)

"It appears you feel an economic system, by itself, can generate wealth in some magic way, independent of natural and human resource exploitation."

What gives you that preposterous idea? In fact, there is no such thing as an economic system which does not include the efforts and creativity of human beings and the use of resources, what you dramatically call "exploitation!" Can you even imagine a time when an economy hasn't been based on work and resources and trade? That's in fact it is the very definition of an economy on any level.

"You seem blind to the 3rd world source of this wealth and how the several hundred years of exploitation by Euro-derived nations is now receiving backlash."

What gives you the idea that I am not blind to past colonialization and brutalization of the Third World by Europeans, or the rape of much of South Asia by the Chinese, Japanese and Indians, or the quasi-colonization and exploitation of parts of Latin America and the Phillipines by the US, or the destruction of Aborigine and Maori culture by Australians, or the mauling of Central European lives and culture by the Soviet Union? In fact, since I do not have some obsession with the sins of the United States, I can see human history writ large. You do know that human history was occurring prior to 1776, no?

You seem to prefer the picturesque scene of the average Third World farmer who is illiterate, uneducated beyond the skills needed to farm his land, upon which he labors literally every day of his life except for his wedding day from dawn to dusk, undernourished, destroying his body behind a plow, where his wife and children are likely to die in childbirth before he dies at the ripe old age of 40 if he hasn't contracted some disease that makes him die of simple diarrhea.

Because you prefer this to him living in an apartment with a healthy family, driving a car or riding a train to work in a factory and watching t.v. at night. Egads, that's exploitation! Yeah, the kinds of exploitation that every Third Worlder wants.

"Regarding the results of Iran becoming nuclear, I've repeatedly stated the gross, immediate result would be- nothing. Of course they won't use them, so they would sit, and that would be that."

You could be right about that, lil' buddy. We'll know soon enough. I don't think stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program is very likely. The last thing we would want to do is intervene militarily. It wouldn't work and it would in fact backfire. We can try to keep them away with sanctions but I'm not holding my breath. It is why you have read throughout the Fray repeatedly my desire that we engage the government of Iran and attempt to steer it towards partnership and at least transform it into a rival rather than an enemy. The problem to solve is not its nuclear weapons but its relationship with the world.

"...Likewise, if Iran becomes a nuclear power they will be freed from the juvenile fear of invasion and humbling third world status and feel they have the right to move toward mature world leadership status. They will cease being such a "rogue" nation, cease needing to use a petty anti-Israel stance to establish Muslim legitimacy and start finding the benefits of cautious cooperation with other world powers as an equal. If they choose Russia...hey, its a free count...erm...world, right?"

I agree 100% on the above. Nukes could be what makes them relax. And oh yes, they have every right in the world to make any pact with Russia or whomever they wish to have. It would hurt us and we might be forced, finally, to get serious about alternative energy.

I do not argue that America's role in global economics is universally bad. I just disagree with your red white and blue analysis that it is universally good.

I'll mention an interesting interview in Newsweek, last week, with Ahmadinejad (with a very antagonistic Lally Weymouth doing the interview). He may be no more knowledgeable about his nation's nuclear program than Saddam Hussein was. But his stated opinion is that they consider possession of nuclear weapons to be a bad thing and it is, in part, by this criterion that they judge the USA.

Easy to dismiss him; he has made buffoonish statements in the past almost equal to Bush's best. But it may be that he is both honest and correct about the peaceful intentions of their nuclear program, for the stated purpose of energy and medicine. I wouldn't be shocked if that monkey-faced jew would enjoy nothing more than making the West fret and scream over nukes, dancing like puppets on strings, over what ends up being a nuclear weapon stockpile the size of Saddam Hussein's along with some power plants and cancer medicine.

Let's face it Early Bird, you are oh so sensitive when Iran ignores all possible positives and demonizes the USA or Israel, but you are blind to the fact that you do exactly that same thing to them on a daily basis. If I am to believe you on how bad Iran is, why should I not equally believe Ahmadinejad on how bad you are? In his interview he was at least as knowledgeable and articulate as you have ever been.

"I just disagree with your red white and blue analysis that it is universally good."

Nowhere did I state that global capitalism is universally good. Nor did I state it in some "red, white and blue" manner. It is simply factual, something which you concede, that the US is at the forefront of the global economy. I see plenty of upsides for once-destitute human beings, ones which you seem incapable of recognizing because such recognition would accrue to America's benefit, and that would make you some red, white and blue Uber-Patriot, apparently.

"I'll mention an interesting interview in Newsweek, last week, with Ahmadinejad (with a very antagonistic Lally Weymouth doing the interview). He may be no more knowledgeable about his nation's nuclear program than Saddam Hussein was."

At the very least Ah'jad knows what the world now absolutely knows, which is that they have at least one nuclear weapons grade plutonium processing plant in Iran, the existence of which they had been denying for years. It was found out by Britain, France and the US and Obama announced at the start of the recent UN meetings a couple of weeks ago. And Iran, with egg on its face, said, "Okay, we do have one single little nuclear weapons grade plutonium processing plant!"

"But his stated opinion is that they consider possession of nuclear weapons to be a bad thing and it is, in part, by this criterion that they judge the USA."

He considers it a bad thing that the USA has nuclear weapons. The US's allies and those under the US's protective umbrella don't think it's a bad thing. If Ah'jad thought they were a "bad thing" in general, then why would his country pursue putting more of them in the worldr? In other words, it is a bad thing in Iran's strategic reality that the US has nukes, and he wishes to counter them. Good for him. Iran has every right int he world to try to gain that advantage. The US and others have every right in the world to attempt to keep Iran from that advantage.

" But it may be that he is both honest and correct about the peaceful intentions of their nuclear program, for the stated purpose of energy and medicine."

No, he is neither honest or correct. Apparently you aren't aware of the aforementioned news that was released a couple of weeks ago, which was admitted by the Iranians. It is an objective fact that Iran has at least one plant producing weapons grade nuclear material.

"I wouldn't be shocked if that monkey-faced jew...

(a little weird self loathing, huh?)

...would enjoy nothing more than making the West fret and scream over nukes, dancing like puppets on strings, over what ends up being a nuclear weapon stockpile the size of Saddam Hussein's along with some power plants and cancer medicine."

You mean to draw the West into a war which destroys his government, destroys the country of Iran by making us believe that they were on the edge of going nuclear? Hmmm.

"Let's face it Early Bird, you are oh so sensitive when Iran ignores all possible positives and demonizes the USA or Israel, but you are blind to the fact that you do exactly that same thing to them on a daily basis. If I am to believe you on how bad Iran is, why should I not equally believe Ahmadinejad on how bad you are? In his interview he was at least as knowledgeable and articulate as you have ever been."

No, I expect that from the government of Iran. I get "sensitive" by apparently grown men who live in the world, who have evidence of the good and bad of America, and plenty of objective reporting about the Iranian government who pretend they have no information to make a judgement about the Iranian government and put the words of its leader in perspective.