Re: [Marxism] Ahmadinejad: Iran to Talk, U.S. Gave In

["Eli Stephens" <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

My take, from:
http://lefti.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_lefti_archive.html#114979874980303965
(links in the original)


"Negotiations" with Iran

I wrote below about how the U.S. "offer" to "negotiate" with Iran was little
more than a ploy to justify eventual war (or sanctions - war by economic
means). The New York Times article on the subject makes the nature of this
"offer" even clearer:

------
In addition to suspending its enrichment of uranium indefinitely, Iran would
have to receive a seal of approval from the International Atomic Energy
Agency confirming that it had no undeclared nuclear facilities or secret
nuclear programs, and that it had answered a long list of outstanding
questions, European diplomats and senior Bush administration officials said.
Such criteria alone in recent years took Japan five years to accomplish.

In addition, the package calls for Iran to prove economic justification for
its nuclear program, a complicated process that would probably take more
than 10 years. [Ed. note - huh?]

That formula was designed to give the six powers -- the United States,
Britain, Russia, France and China, the five permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council, plus Germany -- complete control over any decision
to allow Iran to proceed with some enrichment. "The package does not say
that if the I.A.E.A. gives Iran a clean bill of health that it will be the
end of the moratorium," said one senior European official. "It simply means
we will re-examine it."

Asked whether the United States had softened its position, the official
said, "This is a small conceptual step because they accept the notion that
someday in some circumstances -- maybe in 30 years when the mullahs
disappear -- there could be the end of a moratorium."
------

It's worth recalling this is precisely the ploy used with respect to the
sanctions on Iraq which led to the deaths of more than a million Iraqis.
Sanctions were supposedly imposed until Iraq could prove it had disarmed
itself (of WMD). But the sanctions didn't have to be regularly renewed, they
were in effect indefinitely until the Security Council voted to remove them.
Which meant that the United States (and Britain) had veto power over their
removal. Which in turn allowed Bill Clinton to vow that sanctions would
remain in place until Saddam Hussein was no longer in office, regardless of
the existence (or non-existence) of WMD. Which in effect meant that,
whatever the original justification, the U.S. was effectively allowed to
rewrite the justification. Kind of like one of those George Bush "signing
statements." The intentions of the people (or countries) who actually voted
for something in the first place? Of no consequence to those in power.

Eli Stephens
 Left I on the News
 http://lefti.blogspot.com



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism