June 4, 2006


Iran keeps door open to nuclear talks: This weekend, President Ahmadinejad indicated he wanted to negotiate, but 'without preconditions.' (Scott Peterson, 6/05/06, The Christian Science Monitor)

Speaking to the ideological faithful at the gilt shrine dedicated to Iran's top revolutionary icon, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over the weekend softened Iran's stance toward nuclear talks with the West and the United States, saying a deal may be possible.

The arch-conservative Iranian president...

When the Iranians are our friends will they still be conservatives?

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 4, 2006 6:57 PM

What about the whole destroy Israel thing they keep talking about?

Posted by: Pepys at June 4, 2006 7:19 PM

It's just good clean fun, like the nuke Iran talk here.

Posted by: oj at June 4, 2006 7:22 PM

OJ, you've out-appeased Neville Chamberlain. Not even he referred to Mein Kampf as good clean fun.

Posted by: 149 at June 4, 2006 7:45 PM

There's a musical version on Broadway, no?

Posted by: oj at June 4, 2006 7:48 PM

So you find the potential for Iranian incineration of Israel and a the extermination of Jews in Second Holocaust to be funny.

Are you some sort of sicko neo-Nazi?

Posted by: 149 at June 4, 2006 8:12 PM

149 -

Haven't been around these parts long, have ye?

Posted by: ghostcat at June 4, 2006 8:42 PM

We need only read the first few lines of the Monitor story, wherein we learn that the arch-conservative Armahadinejad was addressing the faithful at the shrine of the Revolutionary icon, Khomeini.

So which is it, conservative or revolutionary?

The answer is that it doesn't matter and the writers don't care. Truth and consistency are mere Bourgiosie conventions. The higher truth is what advasnces the Party.

Posted by: Lou Gots at June 4, 2006 8:42 PM

I find someone who makes the hysterical claim that Iran has that potential to be hilarious.

Posted by: oj at June 4, 2006 9:07 PM

OJ, are you saying that the Iranians will be forever incapable of producing a nuclear bomb and we shouldn't worry about it? Why shouldn't they be able to mak an atomic bomb? They already have nuclear capable missiles that can hit Israel with only a 10 minute warning time. They only need a half dozen to destroy tiny Israel.

So what exactly do you find so hilarious?

Posted by: 149 at June 4, 2006 9:16 PM

If they had the capacity to do anything to Israel the Israelis would strike them first, which is why they aren't developing them. There's no such place as tiny Israel. Israel is David. Iran is Goliath.

Posted by: oj at June 4, 2006 9:20 PM

149, you'll feel a lot better if you stop believing the media. In fact, it's best if you ignore them altogether. You'll sleep better too. Find out what's happening by surfing the net.

Posted by: erp at June 4, 2006 10:27 PM

149 - Rantburg is helpful.

Posted by: Sandy P at June 4, 2006 11:07 PM

So according to OJ Iran really isn't developing nuclear weapons and Isreal is not geographically tiny. Sombody better tell SoS Rice.

Posted by: 149 at June 5, 2006 5:59 AM

Geography? What does that matter?

Posted by: oj at June 5, 2006 7:17 AM

Well a smaller country requires only a few nukes to destroy it. In Israel's case that would be only 3 to 4 bombs.

That and the fact that geography is the bedrock of history, military strategy, geopolitics, etc. Other than that, geography is meaningless.

Posted by: 149 at June 5, 2006 8:06 AM

So tell me, why do you think the Iranians really aren't building a bomb or are incapable of doing so. Provide evidence please.

Posted by: 149 at June 5, 2006 8:08 AM

Israel has bombs, none of its enemies, except France, does. No one nukes a nuclear power.

Geography doesn't matter. The organization of the state and society does.

Posted by: oj at June 5, 2006 8:12 AM

No one serious thinks they've gotten very far, even if they're trying, which the leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei makes doubtful:


Posted by: oj at June 5, 2006 8:21 AM

And if you're wrong then we're far enough away that we won't get hit with much of the fallout, correct?

Posted by: tps at June 5, 2006 9:11 AM

The fallout will all be in Iran.

Posted by: oj at June 5, 2006 9:16 AM

oj. When you say that of Israel's enemies, only France has nukes, did you mean to exclude Pakistan? I've always had my doubts and thought we all paid lip service to Pakistan's nuclear program so they could claim moral equivalence to India.

Posted by: erp at June 5, 2006 3:50 PM

We need to be careful about what regime runs Pakistan, but the current one is an ally of Israel:


Of course, as long as Iran threatens Israel all the Sunni states are de facto allies of Israel.

Posted by: oj at June 5, 2006 4:00 PM

Have they all received the memo?

Posted by: erp at June 5, 2006 10:34 PM