Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit 1 Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (2 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   No comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Pre- Conditions for Negotiation or an Ultimatum to Iran?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 4/8/12

Digitalglobe, via Agence France

Press, Getty Images, satellite image

of Iranian nuclear facility of Fordo

The headline this morning read, "U.S. Defines It's Demands For Iran Talks", from David E. Sanger and Steven Erlanger, "The New York Times", April 8, 2012.

The essence of the article: Before we begin "negotiations" with you over your nuclear program give it up or else. The or else being if you don't give it up we'll take it out for you.

Technically, we're not at war with Iran. Yet according to President Obama, this is Iran's "last chance" to "immediately dismantle a nuclear facility deep under a mountain at Fordo, halt production of uranium fuel and all existing stockpiles of that fuel be shipped out of the country".

These are not pre-conditions for "negotiations", they're ultimatums.

From here, negotiations are supposed to be diplomatic sit-downs between adversaries because a stalemate exists between them. Negotiations are not ultimatums demanding unconditional surrender as a pre-condition for talks.

But this is what happens when one side exercises world hegemony and acts with arrogant hubris telling Iran it's our way or the highway.

Is this supposed to intimidate Ayatollah Khamenei and the other clerical hard line rulers in Iran? Will U.S. threats help the internal opponents of the Iranian regime to somehow coalesce and overthrow it?

Or will U.S. intimidation backfire, act to inspire Iranian nationalism, its people choosing to rally around the Iranian nation rather than capitulate to an outside aggressor?

Khamenei has stated openly, it would be a "sin" for Iran to develop a nuclear bomb (all but dismissed and ignored by the U.S.). Iran is a signee to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and is legally permitted to develop nuclear energy for peaceful means. It is in basic compliance with the IAEA nuclear inspectors.

All 17 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 and 2010 concurred that Iran gave up pursuit of a nuclear weapon in 2003.

Even General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says Iran is a "rational actor" and is not suicidal i.e. would never risk the certain annihilation of the Iranian people and civilization in a nuclear exchange.

So, why the bluster coming from the U.S. before "negotiations" with Iran begin?

Next Page  1  |  2

 

dglefc22733@aol.com

Retired. The author of "DECEIT AND EXCESS IN AMERICA, HOW THE MONEYED INTERESTS HAVE STOLEN AMERICA AND HOW WE CAN GET IT BACK", Authorhouse, 2009

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

An Ominous Foreboding, Israel vs Iran

The Evolving Populist Political Rebellion in the Arab World

A Nuclear War Would Be Insane

The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Poorer, While the Middle Class Gets Decimated

Iran Offers 9 Point Plan to end Nuclear Crisis, U.S. "No thanks".

The Danger of an Israeli Attack on Iran

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments