Deciphering White House Policy On Iran

State Department Reporter Charles Wolfson Analyses The High-Stakes, Amorphous Diplomacy

(CBS)  CBS News Reporter Charles Wolfson is a former Tel Aviv bureau chief for CBS News who now covers the State Department.

---

One can be forgiven for not understanding the Bush administration's policy as it tries to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons.

The evolution of policy, from naming Iran a member of the “axis of evil” in 2002, to last week’s dispatch of the State Department’s third ranking official, Under Secretary William Burns, to join Washington’s allies at a negotiating table with Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, has been quite a long and frustrating path.

On the one hand, President George W. Bush and his administration have been pretty straightforward: isolate Tehran as much as possible and use the pressure of sanctions to get it to change course and give up what Washington sees as its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The problem is the strategy hasn’t worked.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recognized the need for a new direction when she spoke in May, 2006 about the U.S. joining its allies at the negotiating table “if” Iran suspended its enrichment activities.

Fast forward a couple of years and stir in several sanctions resolutions from the U.N. Security Council - Iran hasn’t done what, not only the U.S., but also the international community has demanded. Still, Ambassador Burns turned up in Geneva last week. Rice said it was a “tactical” not a substantive change in policy.

The Woodrow Wilson Center’s Aaron David Miller, who has followed the region for several decades, says the move to send Burns to Geneva shows the administration’s, “capacity for pleasant surprises is still pretty high.”

Miller thinks it compares to the Bush administration strategy in Middle East peacemaking; “It’s like Annapolis,” he said in a telephone interview. “It’s little risk for little gain.” And, one could say, possibly no gain at all.

In the wake of Iran’s response in Geneva to representatives of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and Amb. Burns at the table, even Secretary Rice seems to agree the concession bore little fruit. “Well, we expected to hear an answer from the Iranians,” she told reporters, “but as has been the case so many times with the Iranians, what came through was not serious.”

Another administration official, Under Secretary of Commerce Mario Mancuso, in remarks prepared for delivery at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, underscores a key to Iran’s ability to defy the will of the international community. Noting the global unity against its policies, Mancuso says, “Iran has a long history of making the most out of a losing hand.”

This brings us to where we go from here. Iran was given a couple of weeks to come up with a better answer than they furnished in Geneva last week.

“If there is not a serious answer, then we still have the New York channel,” said Rice. Great. Another three to six months will be spent spewing out another sanctions resolution at the United Nations. The sanctions resolutions already passed and the actions taken by various countries acting alone have, administration officials say, started to bite, even if they have not yet changed Tehran’s policy.

Iran’s ability to access the international financial markets has been pinched, but it's obviously not brought about the desired response in Geneva. Meanwhile, Iran keeps perfecting its efforts to develop the nuclear capability it so badly wants. While Washington would like Tehran to follow Libya’s example and give up the pursuit of nukes, the model Iran seems to have in mind is North Korea. First, develop a weapon or the capability to make one and then, perhaps, negotiate in good faith.

For now, there is virtually no indication Iran will give up its nuclear pursuits. Washington has dangled the notion of re-establishing diplomatic relations which were cut after the 1979 hostage crisis but even a move like that is no guarantee of seeing a suspension in nuclear enrichment activities.

Such a move, however, combined with sending Amb. Burns to Geneva, would serve to show the world the Bush administration has tried to make the diplomatic route work. That could be critical since there are still those in the administration who advocate the use of the military option, if necessary, to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state.

With six months left of the Bush administration, it appears a safe bet Tehran will let the clock run out and take its chances on “making the most out of a losing hand” with the next set of policymakers in Washington.

[harp1963]

White House policy on Iran goes something like this in my mind....Well guys and Condi, we need some scary threat to the American voter that will help our buddy John get in office. Now we hope the regular voter doesn''t find out that EXPORTS TO IRAN ARE UP TENFOLD DURING THE BUSH YEARS.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/topstories/2008-07-08-350908565_x.htm

We don''t want the regular voter to realize Iran is really in our pocket and puts on shows of military might at our request, behind the scenes of course.

We want the regular voter to believe Iran is going to invade us with a fleet of rubber jon boats so they will vote for John McCain who will protect them from our buddies....I mean threat. If Obama gets in we could all be forced to speak Iranian next year. Scary

[babooph]

I clearly recall Bush anouncing he can use the military to fight more than the wars he is already in.[He did not mention he is losing those wars].Japan & Germany already showed the world how all national problems can be taken care of by war-Bush must have had the dunce cap on the day his history class covered that.

[bluestardad]

CURRENT POLICY IS RUN BY OIL AND AIPAC MEMBERS IN GOVERNMENT!

BOTH NEED PURGED

[terrorislamq]

NOT TO GO AFTER FASCIST NAZI TERRORISLAMIST BECAUSE THEY MIGHT TRY TO HARM YOU IS REALLY NOT THE POLICY OF THE USA,,,

Ellis Leach: I met with Prince Thamer at Saudi Embassy fifteen minutes after hearing this morning''s news. And after speaking with Thamer, I advised withholding additional U.S. personnel, because a large part of the religious justification for these bombs is the presence of current U.S. personnel. More boots on Saudi soil is only gonna make an already combustible situation that much more so.
Maricella Canavesio: My two cents. The Saudis have not asked for FBI help. They''ve done the opposite. This is just going to further complicate an already deteriorating situation with one of our few remaining allies in the Middle East.
Attorney General Gideon Young: Rock solid logic.
FBI Director James Grace: Well, we would like to be on the record as saying the FBI would like an Evidence Response Team on the ground in Riyadh now.
Ellis Leach: Doesn''t your team in that country represent exactly the kind of... of target that these masters would die for? They''d trade ten of their own for one of you.
FBI Director James Grace: Not to go after criminals because they might try to harm you is really not a policy of the FBI. See, we try not to say uncle. We try.

The Kingdom (2007)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0431197/quotes

[terrorislamq]

hmmmmmm what does ham-asss, lez-balless(hezbollah), nation of terrorislam and ism(international solidarity movement) know that you do not know???

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hamas+endorses obama&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hezbollah endorse obama
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nation of islam endorses obama &btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=International Solidarity Movement obama &btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama islamic marxist group ISM &btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama Audacity of Hope I will stand with the Muslims&btnG=Search

Once upon a time there was a serpent who was badly injured in a fight with another animal. It managed to slither away to safety but would have surely died if a benevolent man had not seen it suffering by the side of the road. The goodly man carefully wrapped the snake up and took it to his house, where he bestowed the kindest and gentlest care on the snake until it was healed and could return to the wild. Just as the man was releasing the serpent back into the grass, the ungrateful snake turned and bit him on the hand.

"What did you do that for?" cried the man, who knew that the bite of this particular snake was usually fatal. "Didn''t I take care of you when no one else would?"

The snake shrugged (no small feat for a snake!) and replied to the benevolent--and now doomed-- man, "What did you expect? You knew I was a snake when you picked me up."

[samsel3]

Nothing has changed on Iran. The administrations interest in Iran & nukes is a smoke screen for their real agenda. Their true interests are Cheney''s energy policy. Part of that policy is the The Caspian Sea pipeline which will go through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan,Pakistan, to the gulf of Oman and on to India & Nepal.It will be cheaper to construct if they can go through Iran, but regime change is necessary first.

The Caspian sea area holds one third of the world''s oil and south asian oil markets are their target market. This pipeline was also the reason for the Afghanistan invasion. Cheney''s energy policy is the root of all these middle east wars, a federal court judge sealed all documents associated with it for the administration. More troops are needed in Afghanistan to protect the contractors building the pipeline.

Iran stands in the way of total control of global oil now with sales of oil to China''s Sinopec Oil,deal signed Dec.10,2007. Months ago China said there would be dire consequences if the US interfered with there direct oil contracts with Iran. Both parties in the Congress should be very concerned with China''s growing war machine and need for oil. They are the real threat & the administration doesn''t care they are in control ! All that matters to them is BIG OIL and their corporate stock portfolios .

[samsel3]

Russia has multiple nuclear power plant contracts with Iran. These plants are currently under construction.

Reuters uk January 18, 2008 : " Iran has some awesome colleagues. Russia and China have become guardians of the Iranian economy. They don%u2019t put religion between business and political advantages. The US is sorely lacking in intelligent Foreign Policy. Hitler%u2019s Foreign Policy has been resurrected to serve the needs of an oil agenda and turn the US into the most disrespected and despised world power ".
POSTED: Friday, January 18, 2008

Moscow -- Armed forces will be used if necessary, including preventively and with the use of nuclear weapons, for protection of Russia and its allies, the Russian Armed Forces'' Chief of the General Staff Yuri Baluyevsky said on Saturday.

"We do not intend to attack anybody. But all our partners must realize that for protection of Russia and its allies if necessary armed forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons," Baluyevsky was quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as saying.

Baluyevsky reportedly made the statement at a scientific conference of the Academy of Military Sciences January 19, 2008.

[trishab4]

CBS: ...isolate Tehran as much as possible and use the pressure of sanctions to get it to change course and give up what Washington sees as its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The problem is the strategy hasn%u2019t worked.

-The problem is the Repukons'' strategy hasn%u2019t worked. The problem is the Repukons'' strategy hasn%u2019t worked. The problem is the Repukons'' strategy hasn%u2019t worked. The problem is the Repukons'' strategy hasn%u2019t worked. The problem is the Repukons'' strategy hasn%u2019t worked. The problem is the Repukons'' strategy hasn%u2019t worked. The problem is the Repukons'' strategy hasn%u2019t worked. The problem is the Repukons'' strategy hasn%u2019t worked.

-Iran is not North Korea! Iran is an unavoidable power broker in the Mid-East and needs to be taken into account. A shift from a full and blind support to Israel toward a balanced relationship with Iran must be operated as soon as possible before Iran gains more influence excluding us from this influence gain as major power broker to the account of Russia, India and China the three other power brokers in the Mother Continent; Asia...

[closethippy1]

What I find most interesting about this issue is how the US goes about creating an enemy for the purpose of keeping Americans worried about it as a way to keep them distracted from what the power elite is doing with the US.
We have a mortgage crisis and gas is at $4/gallon and nobody knows what hit them. How did we get to this point all of a sudden?
Wasn''t anyone paying attention? Obviously not. It seems most of our attention is directed by the media towards these "enemies" of the US.
To create these "enemies", these distractions, the US government and the media choose a leader or an organization to pound on. So the argument goes, "We in the US have nothing against the Iranians (or the Palestinians, or the Lebanese Shiites, etc) but we do have a problem with such and such leader, or such and such organization".
So by making these leaders and/or organizations the issue the US can then insinuate that the people who follow these leaders or organizations are fair game for a military or propaganda attack.
It''s much easier to hate an individual or organization than an entire nation.
What I wonder is why, oh why, does the US media have to go along with the power elite''s silly games?

[clestes-2009]

Get with the program, dude! Iran OFFERED to give up its nuclear enrichment program, plus combat terrorism in 2003. Get that?? Iran VOLUNTARILY offered exactly what shrub is now demanding.

Rice, ever the hopeless and inept NSA told Iran to shove it!

Rice IS NOT interested in stopping Iran''s nuclear program. All she is trying to do is provide shrub with an excuse to attack Iran that will hold water with the American people. Because when/if that happens the economic costs will be very high. Oil over $200 a barrel and gas at $7. And that is for starters.

The American people are war weary and worried about the economy plus Adm Mullen, Robert Gates and the Pentagon are steadfast against that idea. What did Mullen say this weekend? 2 Middle East wars are enough, I can''t handle 3. shrub would have attacked before if not for that.

Regime change and access to Iran''s oil is the goal of shrub, not stopping nuclear enrichment.

[navyretired2]

"What I wonder is why, oh why, does the US media have to go along with the power elite''''s silly games?

Posted by closethippy1 at 07:24 AM : Jul 23, 2008"

Who do you think owns the media? Yep...the power elite. You expect them to screw themselves over? Sure stinks...but that''s what we have.

[trishab4]

PETROLEUM ($/bbl)


PRICE* CHANGE % CHANGE TIME
Nymex Crude Future 126.17 -$2.25 -1.75% 07:24
Dated Brent Spot 127.04 -$2.05 -1.59% 07:53
WTI Cushing Spot 127.95 -$3.09 -2.36% 07/22

Those were some good news from bloomberg.com to the fact America will not attack Iran.

[harpoot]

"White House Policy"

Using White House and Policy together is a real joke.

[jsl45]

There''s nothing hard to understand here....it''s just more of Shrub the Dumbnificent''s idiotic foreign policy. If Shrub is stupid enough to invade Iraq and destablize the region and allow Iran to end up in the driver''s set then it''s not to hard to understand poor Shrub just doesn''t know what he''s doing!!

[chrisl45]

Obama is the teacher saying to the world all my students did not fly into the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon! This is Obama''''s plan, legacy, and shows his charisma as well. First, all he is is a black teacher at law school. That''''s what he is using. Traditionally, when I think of a black professor, I think of someone who knows the laws dealing with "minorities" over everything else. I mean that''''s what they are best at, what they like dealing with, and what is expected of them by their students. So, here comes along Obama with that label. Minorities such as radical extreme Islamist groups can use this fatherly protection against the United States to come in and learn how to fly planes for example. Obama is keeping his fingers crossed when he talks to the heads of countries such as Palestine, Iraq, and Jordan. It might work in the short term for the terrorists. Maybe they want to see what they can get. Thus, unintentionally or intentionally Obama is telling countries such as these that maybe he wants to send American troops to Afghanistan to kill them like over 10,000 Russians were killed there. That''''s Barack Obama''''s plan, legacy, and secret. That''''s why I''''m begging you to vote for John McCain. John has the experience to get things done. God Bless Senator John McCain, our troops, and the USA

[darnedsocks]

ANY COUNTRY WHOSE LEADER SAYS HE WANTS TO KILL EVERYONE IN ISRAEL, SHOULD "NOT" BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY NUCLEAR ABILITIES; THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY TOO "IMMATURE" AS A NATION TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEIR "ANGER"...THIS HATRED IS SPECIFICALLY TAUGHT UNDER THE EVIL TEACHINGS OF ISLAM.

[factsearcher]

What an interesting concept...
we are now trying to negotiate with a president who was very much physically involved in the hostage crisis...
the same crisis that provoked our sanctions against Iran back in the 70''s..
It is internationaly agreed by UN and EU that Iran is not a country that should possess the enrichment for nuclear weapons... except for Russia and China under the table...which finance Iran''s desires.
SO, the question remain... should we continue trying to "negotiate" with a lunatic or should we confront Russia and China???
Any intellectual takers on this one?

[coco0331]

Its amazing all the plans this party has in its last couple months in office. I think their main objective is to through as many monkey wrenches into the gears as possible to choke off the country as much as possible. Its definitely foreign infiltration, I just don''t know if its the Jews or the red coats.

[roachcrusher]

coco you''re cucu.

[sistatee-2009]

The White House policy on Iran (like the building has a policy) is to spend as much money there, for as long as it can possibly be spent there.

[Gary Kempf]

Deciphering White House Policy On Iran;

It is quite simple actually;
(A)Idiot presently in charge of the White House
has his subordinate idiots shooting off their mouths.

(B) Idiot presently in charge of Iran knows he can push the proper buttons to tick off (A).Knowing also all Subordinate idiots of (A) will follow his rantings to the letter. Secure in the knowledge absolutely nothing will be resolved by (A).

(B) also knowing (A)is on the short side of getting his butt evicted from the White House. Finds himself amused by (A''s) rantings. Keeps pushing the proper buttons so "Gap Tooth Rice" will engage in total Barking Dog Syndrome. Sounds mean, ugly to look at, and has nothing but embargo''s.

So yes (B) idiot in charge of Iran can wait it out, because (A) has no power, ability...

[leftyintexas]

The White House plan on Iran is to watch what OBAMA says and does and then try to copy his ideas since DUMBYA never had a plan to begin with. Then he might start to look better than Millard Fillmore before leaving office. I kinda doubt though...

[arbobekol]

For the sake of argument let''s say that west is correct in its assessment that Iran wants nuclear weapon. Further, let''s say that Iran has no reason to doubt the international (really the west) would honor all its commitments once it agrees to any freeze of its nuclear activities (not one it can take lightly since it was the west that sold it the nuclear technology decades ago!). We have a situation where the Israeli leaders are calling for preemptive strike on a regular basis and their editorials are calling for leaving it a "nuclear wasteland" while at the same time US politicians voice unequivocal support of whatever action Israel wants to take against it and refuse to forgo the use of force. So, now our guy shows up at a meeting and wee expect them to fall right in line with our demands, on the spot!
Let''s assume they did, and after freezing its activities Israel made its threats real. Do we really expect any nation or government to be this foolish?

[arbobekol]

For the sake of argument let''s say that west is correct in its assessment that Iran wants nuclear weapon. Further, let''s say that Iran has no reason to doubt the international (really the west) would honor all its commitments once it agrees to any freeze of its nuclear activities (not one it can take lightly since it was the west that sold it the nuclear technology decades ago!). We have a situation where the Israeli leaders are calling for preemptive strike on a regular basis and their editorials are calling for leaving it a "nuclear wasteland" while at the same time US politicians voice unequivocal support of whatever action Israel wants to take against it and refuse to forgo the use of force. So, now our guy shows up at a meeting and wee expect them to fall right in line with our demands, on the spot!
Let''s assume they did, and after freezing its activities Israel made its threats real. Do we really expect any nation or government to be this foolish?

[arbobekol]

For the sake of argument let''s say that west is correct in its assessment that Iran wants nuclear weapon. Further, let''s say that Iran has no reason to doubt the international (really the west) would honor all its commitments once it agrees to any freeze of its nuclear activities (not one it can take lightly since it was the west that sold it the nuclear technology decades ago!). We have a situation where the Israeli leaders are calling for preemptive strike on a regular basis and their editorials are calling for leaving it a "nuclear wasteland" while at the same time US politicians voice unequivocal support of whatever action Israel wants to take against it and refuse to forgo the use of force. So, now our guy shows up at a meeting and wee expect them to fall right in line with our demands, on the spot!
Let''s assume they did, and after freezing its activities Israel made its threats real. Do we really expect any nation or government to be this foolish?

[arbobekol]

For the sake of argument let''s say that west is correct in its assessment that Iran wants nuclear weapon. Further, let''s say that Iran has no reason to doubt the international (really the west) would honor all its commitments once it agrees to any freeze of its nuclear activities (not one it can take lightly since it was the west that sold it the nuclear technology decades ago!). We have a situation where the Israeli leaders are calling for preemptive strike on a regular basis and their editorials are calling for leaving it a "nuclear wasteland" while at the same time US politicians voice unequivocal support of whatever action Israel wants to take against it and refuse to forgo the use of force. So, now our guy shows up at a meeting and wee expect them to fall right in line with our demands, on the spot!
Let''s assume they did, and after freezing its activities Israel made its threats real. Do we really expect any nation or government to be this foolish?

[arbobekol]

For the sake of argument let''s say that west is correct in its assessment that Iran wants nuclear weapon. Further, let''s say that Iran has no reason to doubt the international (really the west) would honor all its commitments once it agrees to any freeze of its nuclear activities (not one it can take lightly since it was the west that sold it the nuclear technology decades ago!). We have a situation where the Israeli leaders are calling for preemptive strike on a regular basis and their editorials are calling for leaving it a "nuclear wasteland" while at the same time US politicians voice unequivocal support of whatever action Israel wants to take against it and refuse to forgo the use of force. So, now our guy shows up at a meeting and we expect Iran to fall right in line with our demands, on the spot!
Let''s assume they did, and after freezing its activities Israel made its threats real. Do we really expect any nation or government to be this foolish?

[arbobekol]

For the sake of argument let''s say that west is correct in its assessment that Iran wants nuclear weapon. Further, let''s say that Iran has no reason to doubt the international (really the west) would honor all its commitments once it agrees to any freeze of its nuclear activities (not one it can take lightly since it was the west that sold it the nuclear technology decades ago!). We have a situation where the Israeli leaders are calling for preemptive strike on a regular basis and their editorials are calling for leaving it a "nuclear wasteland" while at the same time US politicians voice unequivocal support of whatever action Israel wants to take against it and refuse to forgo the use of force. So, now our guy shows up at a meeting and we expect Iran to fall right in line with our demands, on the spot!
Let''s assume they did, and after freezing its activities Israel made its threats real. Do we really expect any nation or government to be this foolish?

[arbobekol]

For the sake of argument let''s say that west is correct in its assessment that Iran wants nuclear weapon. Further, let''s say that Iran has no reason to doubt the international (really the west) would honor all its commitments once it agrees to any freeze of its nuclear activities (not one it can take lightly since it was the west that sold it the nuclear technology decades ago!). We have a situation where the Israeli leaders are calling for preemptive strike on a regular basis and their editorials are calling for leaving it a "nuclear wasteland" while at the same time US politicians voice unequivocal support of whatever action Israel wants to take against it and refuse to forgo the use of force. So, now our guy shows up at a meeting and we expect Iran to fall right in line with our demands, on the spot!
Let''s assume they did, and after freezing its activities Israel made its threats real. Do we really expect any nation or government to be this foolish?

[arbobekol]

For the sake of argument let''s say that west is correct in its assessment that Iran wants nuclear weapon. Further, let''s say that Iran has no reason to doubt the international (really the west) would honor all its commitments once it agrees to any freeze of its nuclear activities (not one it can take lightly since it was the west that sold it the nuclear technology decades ago!). We have a situation where the Israeli leaders are calling for preemptive strike on a regular basis and their editorials are calling for leaving it a "nuclear wasteland" while at the same time US politicians voice unequivocal support of whatever action Israel wants to take against it and refuse to forgo the use of force. So, now our guy shows up at a meeting and we expect Iran to fall right in line with our demands, on the spot!
Let''s assume they did, and after freezing its activities Israel made its threats real. Do we really expect any nation or government to be this foolish?

[arbobekol]

For the sake of argument let''s say that west is correct in its assessment that Iran wants nuclear weapon. Further, let''s say that Iran has no reason to doubt the international (really the west) would honor all its commitments once it agrees to any freeze of its nuclear activities (not one it can take lightly since it was the west that sold it the nuclear technology decades ago!). We have a situation where the Israeli leaders are calling for preemptive strike on a regular basis and their editorials are calling for leaving it a "nuclear wasteland" while at the same time US politicians voice unequivocal support of whatever action Israel wants to take against it and refuse to forgo the use of force. So, now our guy shows up at a meeting and we expect Iran to fall right in line with our demands, on the spot!
Let''s assume they did, and after freezing its activities Israel made its threats real. Do we really expect any nation or government to be this foolish?

[arbobekol]

For the sake of argument let''s say that west is correct in its assessment that Iran wants nuclear weapon. Further, let''s say that Iran has no reason to doubt the international (really the west) would honor all its commitments once it agrees to any freeze of its nuclear activities (not one it can take lightly since it was the west that sold it the nuclear technology decades ago!). We have a situation where the Israeli leaders are calling for preemptive strike on a regular basis and their editorials are calling for leaving it a "nuclear wasteland" while at the same time US politicians voice unequivocal support of whatever action Israel wants to take against it and refuse to forgo the use of force. So, now our guy shows up at a meeting and we expect Iran to fall right in line with our demands, on the spot!
Let''s assume they did, and after freezing its activities Israel made its threats real. Do we really expect any nation or government to be this foolish?

[arbobekol]

For the sake of argument let''s say that west is correct in its assessment that Iran wants nuclear weapon. Further, let''s say that Iran has no reason to doubt the international (really the west) would honor all its commitments once it agrees to any freeze of its nuclear activities (not one it can take lightly since it was the west that sold it the nuclear technology decades ago!). We have a situation where the Israeli leaders are calling for preemptive strike on a regular basis and their editorials are calling for leaving it a "nuclear wasteland" while at the same time US politicians voice unequivocal support of whatever action Israel wants to take against it and refuse to forgo the use of force. So, now our guy shows up at a meeting and we expect Iran to fall right in line with our demands, on the spot!
Let''s assume they did, and after freezing its activities Israel made its threats real. Do we really expect any nation or government to be this foolish?

[closethippy1]

Israel is the only country in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons and they couldn''t care less about becoming part of the international organization that makes sure you''re not using your nuclear technology know-how to build nuclear weapons.
That''s the IAEA.
Iran is part of it. They''re a member of the IAEA, meaning they allow that agency to visit their nuclear facilities to make sure they''re not making nuclear bombs.
Israel is not part of it because they keep arguing they cannot trust anyone as if we still were living in the 1930''s.
Iran did keep its nuclear program secret and did not want to be part of the IAEA but all that happened during its 8 year war with Iraq when they were trying to bluff each other about their offensive capabilities.
Iran is therefore very upset they''re being accused by the very country that has nuclear weapons and has reacted with strong words. Israel then uses this show of anger as more evidence of Iran''s bad intentions.
Israel needs to cool it off and become a signatory to the IAEA.

[stevenandsue]

Again it is another case of thesad Pres. Bush Diplomacy, where the world looses. And why U.S.A. needs a real presidential cahnge and not another clone who keep up the mistake.