June 4, 2006


Iran to Make Offer by Six Powers Public: Leader Protests U.S. Tone in Nuclear Dispute but Hints at Breakthrough (Karl Vick, 6/04/06, Washington Post)

Addressing a crowd of government loyalists at the tomb of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's theocratic state, Ahmadinejad said Iran would not prejudge the offer from the United States and the other countries. But he reiterated Iran's refusal to cease enriching uranium as a condition for formal negotiations, saying, "The Iranian nation's right to nuclear technology and power is legal and definite, and we will not talk about these issues."

However, Ahmadinejad also said Iran was willing to discuss "the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and how to stop it," as well as peace and other "common concerns." [...]

The combative tone of Ahmadinejad's evening speech followed a day of relatively optimistic, if somewhat veiled, statements. Both Ahmadinejad and his foreign secretary spoke of a possible "breakthrough" if negotiations were revived.

"I think it's pretty significant, especially if Ahmadinejad used the same word," said Mark Fitzpatrick, a nonproliferation expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a research institute based in London. Speaking before the president's speech, Fitzpatrick said the relatively conciliatory language out of Iran carried additional weight in the absence of prominent public statements from more moderate figures in Iran's government, and that U.S. officials have ratcheted down their own rhetoric.

"You need serious responses on both sides," he said. "It looks like we might be having that."

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, speaking about Washington and Europe, told a news conference that "we think that if there is goodwill, a breakthrough to get out of a situation they have created for themselves" is possible.

Also, state-run news agencies reported Ahmadinejad as saying, in conversation with Annan, that "a breakthrough to overcome world problems, including Iran's nuclear case, would be the equal implementation of the law for all."

Analysts measured the rhetoric by the standard of Iran's tough-talking politics. Ahmadinejad and Mottaki are two of the sterner figures in Iran's theocratic government and are known more for articulating proud defiance than nudging diplomatic initiatives forward. Mottaki's relatively hopeful statement marked a softening from his initial response to Rice, the more biting parts of which appeared to mimic the Bush administration's dismissal of Ahmadinejad's May 8 letter to President Bush.

"We are moving away from a confrontation between these two countries," said Saeed Laylaz, a prominent political analyst in Tehran.

Ayatollah Khamenei tugs the leash.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 4, 2006 9:00 AM

We wouldn't have these troubles if Carter had only nuked them back in 1979

Posted by: 149 at June 4, 2006 11:02 AM

We wouldn't have these problems if only Carter had never been born.

Posted by: erp at June 4, 2006 11:56 AM

Either way erp, weakness is something we dare not show to the Islamics. Taking the embassy and the hostages was an act of war. We should have responded in kind, whether Carter was in the White House or not.

A few nukes and the country would have come apart. We could have occupied the oil fields of the south (who cares if the Soviets got the squablling minorities of the north - they would have had a bigger Afghanistan on their hands). The main source of funding for Hammas, Hezbollah and a dozen other terrorists groups would be nonexistant. Gas at the pump would be $0.25 a gallon. The rest of Islam would have been cowed into submission.

They are never going to love us. They will always hate us. Jews, Christians, democracy, freedom for women, are all anethema to them. But we can make them respect and fear us.

May I suggest you read Dan Simmons April message at:


Let me know what you think about his predicted "Century War" with Islam.

Posted by: 149 at June 4, 2006 12:07 PM

The war wasn't with Islam, especially not Shi'a Islam, just with the Islamicists and they've lost.

Posted by: oj at June 4, 2006 12:50 PM

149, We are a nation of law. Carter was in the White House and it was his call how to handle the hostage crisis. Are you suggesting that there should have been a coup to remove Carter and install Mondale in his place? Even though we were close to it at the time, we still weren't then nor are we now a banana republic and we don't have a bunch of generals at the ready to overthrow the legally elected president.

Anyway, fat chance of Mondale even sending a strongly worded note never mind using nukes.

I don't think we need to use nukes, but are quite right that had we come on strong and let Israel do the same, there would have been peace in the Middle East lo these past forty years. Unfortunately until the collapse of the Soviet Union, most of us believed the fairy tales from the left that the Soviets were our equal militarily and would retaliate to wipe out our cities with their missiles should we have made bold moves along the lines you advocate. We know now that wasn't true, but I wouldn't have advocated taking a chance, would you?

I don't believe it will be a long war, nor do I believe that Bush is tanking with the public. At the end of his presidency, I believe there will be no nukes in the hands of madmen whether they be Persian, Korean or Venezuelan. I think they as well as all the other world leaders know this to be true and will act accordingly.

I'm sublimely indifferent to the future of Islam. They can live in peace and join the nations of the world, or they can fight among themselves, but what they can't do is get in our face again.

Posted by: erp at June 4, 2006 3:07 PM

Impeachment of the weak, indecisive, liberal SOB would have been sufficient. As commander in chief he had every right and a direct duty to wage war on the Iranians when they committed an act of war by taking our embassy (which by law was American territory). Indeed, under Carter, the Iranians completed the only successful invasion of American soil in history.

If the Iranians announce that they have a nuke, we have to respond with nukes to make sure our real ally Israel is not incinerated by Iranian missiles and suitcase nukes don't become as common as car bombs.

Simmons is one of the few writers who takes what the Iranians and Islamics say and write seriously (something most statesmen didn't do with Hitler in the 1930s).

I don't believe it will be a long war, nor do I believe that Bush is tanking with the public.

Of course Bush is tanking with the public, largely do to his inability to quickly end the Iraqi war.

Posted by: 149 at June 4, 2006 4:42 PM

It vwas hardly ba successful invasion and obviously chump change compared to our shooting down a passenger jet.

Posted by: oj at June 4, 2006 4:47 PM

149, we must agree to disagree on this subject, but perhaps we will have a meeting of the minds on another interesting string.

Posted by: erp at June 4, 2006 4:59 PM

The airliner was an accident, the embassy invasion deliberate.

Posted by: 149 at June 4, 2006 8:15 PM

You bet.

Posted by: oj at June 4, 2006 9:13 PM

I'm sorry, what exactly do you mean by "you bet"?

Posted by: 149 at June 4, 2006 9:18 PM

Funny how their mistakes are rather harmless and ours do things like overthrow their government and kill 300 people and aid Saddam in his war of aggression with them and stick them with Ahmedinejad and the like.

Posted by: oj at June 4, 2006 9:25 PM

Does anyone else find it odd that Ahmadinejad uses the word "legal" to defend what is clearly not (with respect to the NPT)?

And I had not heard the foreign minister's name mentioned in any story until this one, but his use of the word "breakthrough" doesn't seem exciting to me - i.e., there will be a 'breakthrough' when the West climbs down from its perch and stops hectoring us.

Karl Vick needs to read William Shirer, methinks.

Posted by: ratbert at June 4, 2006 10:14 PM

Why is it illegal for them to develop nuclear power?

Posted by: oj at June 4, 2006 10:55 PM

They can enrich all the uranium they want, up to about 20% U235. Go over that line, and we're not talking nuclear power anymore.

The NPT doesn't detail a threshold (would that it did), but Articles II and III make it clear that production of weapons or 'special' fissionable material is prohibited.

The development of nuclear power is not illegal (it is addressed in the treaty). Generating highly enriched material is illegal, and there is only one reason for it.

Posted by: ratbert at June 4, 2006 11:10 PM

So there was nothing odd about it.

Posted by: oj at June 4, 2006 11:15 PM

I could have said 'brazenly deceitful', I suppose. Or 'excessively oleaginous'. Or 'downright dirty'.

The Europeans want to believe black is white. I want to know that this guy isn't breathing anymore. I wonder if he has the same private issues that have consumed so many other messianic nutjobs. A little sunlight in his closet might force Khameini to do something (whether he wants to or not).

Posted by: ratbert at June 5, 2006 12:20 AM

The illusion here is that there's something to negotiate.

But there is nothing to negotiate. The Iranians want the Bomb and will do---and say---everything and anything to get it.

And when/if that happens, the real fun will begin.

Posted by: Barry Meislin at June 5, 2006 2:43 AM

They aren't developing nuclear power OJ, they're developing nuclear bombs. You can't be stupid enough to actually believe the Iranians. So why are you such an apologist for a regime of murderous terrorists?

We've had Axis Sally, Tokyo Rose and Hanoi Jane.

Now we have Jihad Judd.

Posted by: 149 at June 5, 2006 6:03 AM


They'll get the bomb, just not under this regime.

Posted by: oj at June 5, 2006 7:07 AM


The comparison to Communism or Nazism is inapt. Shi'ism has nothing to apologize for. Ahmedinejad does, but he's a temporary aberration.

Posted by: oj at June 5, 2006 7:09 AM


Except that, as you note, his statement was truthful.

Posted by: oj at June 5, 2006 7:11 AM

The comparison to Communism or Nazism is inapt. Shi'ism has nothing to apologize for. Ahmedinejad does, but he's a temporary aberration.

Except for seizing our embassy and holding its staff hostage (both acts of war), supporting terrorist groups like Hammas and Hezbolah, financing the weapons that are killing American GIs in Iraq, etc. All of which preceed Ahmedinejad.

Posted by: 149 at June 5, 2006 8:21 AM

They released the hostages. We overthrew their government, aided Saddam, shot down a jetliner, have maintained crippling sanctions for thirty years, etc. It's we who need to apologize.

Posted by: oj at June 5, 2006 8:25 AM

If Ahmadinejad is acting like Goebbels, with his Big Lies, then who is really the Fuhrer?

That's the question you keep dodging. Khameini may have to kill Mahmoud (or might even ask us to do it), but that doesn't make him a saint. Just another gangster, like his mentor.

The issue now is for Khameini to prove your trust in him - to act like Khaddafi and turn his country away from insanity. Can he do it?

You also neglect to mention the USS Stark, which was nearly sunk by Exocet missiles. Might explain why the Navy fired on the Iranian jetliner, eh?

Posted by: ratbert at June 5, 2006 11:02 AM

Ahmedinejad is Hitler. Khamenei is Hindenburg.

THe Stark was hit by Saddam in return for which we attacked Iran. It's just another apology we owe them.

Posted by: oj at June 5, 2006 11:47 AM

Ah, so Ahmadinejad is President for life.

Presents quite a problem for a vigorous Hindenburg.

For the captain of the boat that shot down the airliner, it didn't matter who hit the Stark. He just didn't want to have a repeat experience. Plus, he was known to be overly aggressive.

Posted by: ratbert at June 5, 2006 3:23 PM

"it didn't matter who hit the Stark."

Who can tell the wogs apart anyway, right?

Posted by: oj at June 5, 2006 3:27 PM

Race-baiting again, eh?

Posted by: ratbert at June 5, 2006 3:36 PM

"it didn't matter who hit the Stark."

Posted by: oj at June 5, 2006 3:39 PM

Do you understand context or the English language itself?

Posted by: ratbert at June 5, 2006 7:54 PM

Where's the nuance in "it didn't matter who hit the Stark"?

Posted by: oj at June 5, 2006 8:17 PM

There is a dependent clause in front of that statement. Read the post again.

If you are patrolling in obviously hostile territory (in "enemy" waters, no less), and you know that a comrade had been hit earlier from an aircraft, then you aren't going to care about waiting for verification on a target once you have made the decision that it is assuming a hostile position.

As we now know, the captain of the Vincennes was overly aggressive, had been warned about it before, and was also operating in Iranian waters. Sure, he wanted to fire, and maybe he didn't care which 'wogs' he was shooting at. But I doubt if he wanted to kill almost 300 people. However, he wasn't asking if the plane was Iraqi or Iranian - all he knew was that there might be a missile heading his way if he didn't do something.

Posted by: ratbert at June 6, 2006 9:34 AM

Yes, so the Vincvennes should have been sunk by the Iranians, rather than their passenger jet shot down by America.

Posted by: oj at June 6, 2006 11:00 AM

Time is on the side of Muslims. All imperial powers come and go, and the US will go, China will come and go but faith is something no "nukes, arrogance, self-deluding and big talk" can do away with.

Zionist Israel is a pariah settlement worse even than apartheid South Africa, and is morally illegal, instated by power and kept alive by power. Power that is secular and ignorant, with no capacity to fathom the concept of patience and the "waiting out" game. Someday those Europeans living in Palestine will go back to an unwelcoming Europe or learn to live as equals with the natives.

The Persians will get the nukes, the Pakistanis already have, the Arabs will get them and then the world will be a peaceful place, not dominated by obese shambling mountains of lard that can't even tell the capital of their neighboring country. Where all they care about is the "pump" price. It is a sad world the US is leading today, and I hope history is harsh.

Posted by: Lol at June 12, 2006 7:06 PM

Except that the US isn't an empire and is a faith on the march. It has all the strengths and none of the weaknesses of Islam.

Posted by: oj at June 12, 2006 7:15 PM

If the driving force of an entity is wealth, greed and obnoxious arrogance then that entity is an empire. And especially if this entity is willing to use force to cower anyone who disagrees with its will.

Islam has no weaknesses because it's grassroot, just not enough cohesion and enough weapons to hold the scavengers at bay. That will come in time as everyone realises what is REALLY happening.

Whereas it's the elite who lead the powerful, armed to the teeth country with an ignorant demography in the case of the US.

Posted by: Lol at June 13, 2006 1:53 AM

All peoples are moved by those factors and use force. America, driven by Judeo-Christianity, rather than imperial ambition, just happens to be better at using that force.

Posted by: oj at June 13, 2006 7:15 AM

Peoples use force, faiths are meant for personal soul salvation.

Judeo-Christianity is a very vague and oblique term that doesn't quite encompass the role of the US (as stated articulately by the hawkish neo-cons, whose ambition is make the American hegemony total and glaringly dominating) in the world today. There is no mention of religion at all in their rhetoric, but rather the convenient politically correct cat's paw of freedom and democracy to mask their imperial ambitions.

If the invasions of Panama, Guatemala, Iraq, Venezuela (sabotage), etc etc are religiously motivated according to you then we see the world differently. The US must have an enemy to even survive as a power and survive as a power is the end motive. If it has to provoke then by all means, exactly as the zionist settlement in Palestine has done for its own survival.

In other words a peaceful world is deleterous for a power (especially the US whose technological edge is as a result of the science of weaponry, tools made purposely for killing) and that is why it's tragicomic to hear the "leader of the free world" waxing clumsy on threatened values that must be defended and security risks that must be crashed and defeated.


Posted by: Lol at June 14, 2006 5:21 PM

No, we actually don't much enjoy having enemies, which is why we build down our military and await the next annoyance after every war. But bringing those distant peoples the principles of our Founding is nothing but Judeo-Christian evangelism.

Posted by: oj at June 14, 2006 5:25 PM

Evangelism like in spreading Christianity? Well, not even your rather dim but zealous president believes Muslims can actually convert, to anything. Many with good intentions (and no weapons) have tried before them with little or no success for so long.

The principles of your Founding unfortunately apply to only you. Guantanamo and the scores of secret prisons wouldn't have been had these principles been universal. But I gotta say there are many in the US who see this injustice and a few have actually gone out on a limb at the risk of being called weak, radical, unpatriotic, etc and spoken out, like Muther (or was it Murther).

Judaism and Christianity are mutually incompatible in their true states, but this unholy coalition of zionists, megalomaniacs and capitalists has only one goal in mind; Wealth, Power and Domination. Ergo Imperialism.

Posted by: Lol at June 15, 2006 2:52 PM

Actually, Muslim Kurds are already converting, but conversion isn't particularly necessary. We're Reforming Islam as we already did Catholicism, Judaism, Conficism, and Hinduism.

The principles are universal which is all globalization consists of.

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2006 3:50 PM

Lol, you are a funny guy just as you are presumptuous, I thought the "reformation" of the Catholic Church came a long time ago resulting in Lutheran Protestantism. How have you reformed Judaism, Confuciusism and Hinduism?

Islam is a very elaborate faith that sits much deeper than many philosophical (Taoism, Confuciusism, etc) supersticious (Hinduism, Sikhism, animism) and malleable and weak (Christianity, Buddhism) faiths. It will just strengthen when under attack. It has mechanisms that predict any aggression accurately and from whom and gives guidelines on how to counter. Muslims never fawn to anyone, and maybe that is the reason they tick you off.

The principles are just adorned for ostentation and don't apply when color of skin or professed faith isn't the "right one".

Posted by: Lol at June 15, 2006 4:25 PM

We required them all to accept the separation of Church and State and that liberal capitalist protestant democracy is the only legitimate way to organizea society because Man is Created and endowed with certain rights that pre-exist the state.

Muslims don't tick me off--I think they're the future for much of the pagan world, like Europe.

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2006 4:32 PM

Separation of Church and State was only relevant in Europe where the excesses of the Church hampered societal mobility. It's in Europe it originated out of necessity. You didn't invent it you just migrated with it.

Not all societies have similar pasts, and it's its past (Christian oppression) that is making Europe increasingly pagan.

Posted by: Lol at June 15, 2006 4:46 PM

No, it's just Rationalism, which was a distinct pathology of the continent. But Islam will salvage Europe as we salvage Islam.

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2006 4:52 PM

Europe is much more resistant to religious influence (thanks to the media and a gloomy disposition of its peoples) than the US actually is, so Islam will salvage the US first. It's an overgrown edifice with no sense of direction, that's why you are making so many mistakes in your unsure attempts to govern the world.

Greed and power cannot benefit everyone, faith on the other hand provides a peace and comfort that is universally accessible.

Posted by: Lol at June 15, 2006 4:59 PM

mistakes? There were only a handful of alternatives to the Anglo-American model of parliamentary democracy. We've already defeated Nazism, Communism, and Islamicism is in its death throes, which is why the number of democracies has increased exponentially during the American Century.

Meanwhile, within the parliamentary model there are two endfs towards which you can point the state--the rationalist French and the continent thought you could achieve egalitarian economic security but have failed spectaculary. The religious Anglo-Americans instead have sought to maximize freedom and have succeeded utterly.

History is over and the rest is just a coda.

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2006 5:14 PM

History never ends, but all times have had their share of haughty claims. The addage "all roads lead to Rome" was once actually a serious statement and not a metaphor.

There is nothing wrong with "Anglo-American" concepts of freedom and human rights for all, if they actually meant what they said and weren't otherwise racist in their social dealings. Flamboyant nazism was defeated just to have it creep into the social fabric of all major Caucasian societies. Freedoms only for some; Orwellian "all are equal but some are more equal".

Communism was a human endeavor to force people to conform to an ideal that was utopian, that's why it collapsed. Because human understanding of future outcomes of their endeavors is non-existence.

Islamicism, what is that?

Democracy is good, but its "champions" leave one with a bitter taste in ones mouth. Can a poor man become president in the US? It's not the best man who gets the job, it's just the most cunning and richest who does.

Posted by: Lol at June 15, 2006 5:36 PM

Of course the End of History on Judeo-Christian/Grecco-Roman/Anglo-American terms leaves a bitter taste in your mouth. But no one cares. All that matters is we won and you lost.

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2006 5:42 PM

The bitter taste comes of the blatant contradiction of your claims versus your actions, and only a popular, rational, clever and humane empire can reign over many centuries. Your empire may just be the one that lasts the shortest, thanks to the quick dessimination of information of these times and your own ineptness at the science of social management. Blinded of course by racism.

Don't thump your chest just yet. I don't really feel defeated.

Again history never ends.

Posted by: Lol at June 15, 2006 5:52 PM

It's lasted since at least 1215 and is only picking up steam. The other races have all acceded to it.

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2006 5:58 PM

You have a warped understanding of history, but I don't blame you. The system has shaped you.

The "other races" are being used and robbed to make your lives easier. They just see the dollar sign and lose their dignity over pittances.

Read a little bit more, and learn to be a little less "white American" and a bit more world citizen when trying to see the whole picture.

Posted by: Lol at June 15, 2006 6:07 PM

Dollars are dignity.

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2006 6:12 PM

True. For the thieving, unconscionable materialist who has no concept of co-existence and respect for human worth.

Posted by: Lol at June 15, 2006 6:16 PM

Human worth is a concept we introduced to them and a function of Creation.

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2006 6:25 PM

If you knew what human worth was you wouldn't be wallowing in obscene wealth at the expense of the dying children of Africa, or at the expense of the sweat and blood of the young boys and girls in sweat shops all over Asia. But racism has permeated your very beings so much so that these things don't have an impact on you.

You feel it your God-given right to exploit and live lavish, just as it was for you to own and horribly abuse and demean Africans for four centuries in order to create a super state of the privileged. You just can't change these dynamics over night, that is why I get the bitter taste when I hear you people talk about such noble ideals as human worth and common decency.

Posted by: Lol at June 15, 2006 6:31 PM

we aren't. We stopped the killing in Sudan, fund the AIDs initiative, etc.

The sweat shops are making Asians wealthy, just as they made us wealthy a hundred fifty years ago.

Our Africans are fat and happy. It's the ones we left behind we need to help now.

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2006 6:49 PM

They are fat and happy? They built the country, for free, for 4 centuries. And up to this day they are being handed the short end of the stick and half the males are locked up. Is that your idea of justice and equality? (I didn't expect any better, so it's a rhetorical question).

You are of course influenced by a continual bombardment of "feel good" propaganda by your own kind it's hard to break yourself from it. That is the only way the rich and grabby can continue to be even richer and grabbier with a clear conscience. That is how the slave trade flourished, and that is how "world apartheid" flourishes now. Dehumanize every other race, and put yourself on a pedestal of the "higher human". It works, but it's sad.

Islam is the only medicine for such a ailment.

Posted by: Lol at June 15, 2006 7:02 PM

They were marginal laborers who've reaped a windfall by being brought here. No population of blacks in the world is better off.

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2006 7:20 PM

That's what has been fed to you since you were born so am not surprised you don't know about the significance of the triangular trade for the wealth you think you created yourself. Stealing and savagry made you rich and keeps you rich, so keep God's name out of you diabolical schemes.

Posted by: Lol at June 16, 2006 4:13 AM

The slave states produced little wealth and a weak society which is why they were so easily defeated. Meanwhile, Africa was so feeble we're recreating it in our own image, just like Asia.

Posted by: oj at June 16, 2006 7:41 AM

What put the slave trade to an end was pragmatism rather than the sudden morality on the part of you enslavers. It was the industrial revolution that made it cheaper and with lesser committments to produce the goods the slaves produced, and it was the triangular trade that facilitated the industrial revolution. The profitable triangular trade that lasted many century where one side of the triangle was the slaves. In other words slaves worked themselves to freedom.

The "slave states" were formed almost 300 years into the trade itself. All states were slave trades before then.

Africa created you and you just marginalise and rob it to this day, because you are racists.

Posted by: Lol at June 17, 2006 9:20 AM

If it were a function of pragmatism there never would have bneen chattel slavery--it wasn't an economically productive system and it was socially destructive. We ended it because it was anti-American and we're a moralistic people.

Posted by: oj at June 17, 2006 9:33 AM

If you claim that, why did it last all those centuries? But if it makes you feel good to downplay the savagry that made you what you are today and keeps you that way, by all means do. Rationalizing is a known defence mechanism.

You "public" morality fools many indeed.

Posted by: Lol at June 19, 2006 11:55 AM

It lasted because blacks were viewed as subhuman. Once the religious forced people to recognize their humanity we ended it.

Posted by: oj at June 19, 2006 12:03 PM