Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Reason to stop negotiating with Iran

Duped: If you deceive yourself then deception is your creed with me. That is the position of this journalist. Iran cannot be trusted as a government entity. It is a rogue nation that supports terrorism. For those reasons there should be no negotiating.

A dark theocracy in Iran
Behrouz Mehri/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Now, international participants in “negotiations” with Iran about their nuclear program continue to try to build verifiable assurances that Iran will comply with terms of an agreement. Yet, they have no track record for ever having complied with past agreements. Just the opposite.

The core problem is the nature of Iran’s government. Should any free nation negotiate with a theocracy that is anything but free? Doing so compromises freedom, and that is unacceptable. “Trust but verify” is the approach to negotiating with Iran. Making that leap to trust is too great of a risk.

What is gained by negotiating? Supposedly free nations gain more insight into the exact status of Iran’s nuclear development. That is based on international inspectors having free and clear access to labs and stockpiles, energy facilities and military facilities. That is impossible.

What are the alternatives?

  1. Iron-clad sanctions and full blockade of Iran.
  2. Such a restrictive blockade would be an act of war against Iran.
  3. Either Iran would submit, or it would retaliate militarily.
  4. Military reaction would result in full-scale war against Iran.

A foreign policy strategy would provide an escape valve for moderates inside Iran to overthrow the theocratic regime. Aggressive action by the free world to develop and internal resistance would counter and mitigate radical hostile forces.

The question that needs full debate in Congress and with the executive branch is about the point at which overthrowing rogue regimes becomes foreign policy, and the timing in each instance as rogue regimes have different profiles and circumstances.

Such a strategy is not preemptive because the hostile conditions already exist that precipitate a response.

“Iran, six powers agree to 4-month extension of nuclear talks
July 19, 2014, 3:31 pm

VIENNA – Iran and six world powers agreed to a four-month extension of negotiations on a long-term nuclear deal that would gradually end sanctions on Tehran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear programme, diplomats close to the talks said.

Iran, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China had set a July 20 deadline to complete a long-term agreement that would resolve the decade-old dispute over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. But diplomats said they were unable to overcome significant differences on major sticking points.

"We have reached an agreement to extend the talks," a senior Iranian diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity. Several Western diplomats echoed his remarks. It has been clear for days that Iran and the six powers would miss the Sunday deadline to reach an accord due to disagreements on a number of key issues in the discussions.

Among the issues dividing them are the permissible scope of Iran's nuclear fuel production capacity and how to address the country's suspected past atomic bomb research. The negotiations began in February in Vienna. The talks are taking place because of a preliminary agreement reached in Geneva in November 2013 that gave Iran limited sanctions relief in exchange for halting some nuclear activities and created time and space for the negotiation of a comprehensive deal to end the decade-long dispute.

The negotiations on a long-term deal were likely to resume in September, diplomats said. But it remains uncertain whether four more months of high-stakes talks will yield a final agreement, since the underlying differences remain significant after six rounds of meetings this year. Western nations fear Iran's nuclear programme may be aimed at developing a nuclear weapons capability. Tehran denies this."

Report this ad