Wonder how "explosive" the meeting will be when Iran meets with World Leaders on 1 October. Israel and the United States feel very serious about Iran curtailing its nuclear enrichment activities, so will not be surprised if there should be serious differences. Also hope that some of the terrorist organizations may not feel that this is the time to make their appearance somewhere in protest to the meeting, or to illustrate a point. Israel is very outspokenly against Iran, probably for good reason, as I would imagine they would have intelligence about Iran's nuclear capability that possibly not everyone else have, and have a good idea of the potential threat Iran may pose to world peace.
What are your views on this?
Source of article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090914/ap_on_re_eu/un_nuclear_conference
Highlights of the article:
What are your views on this?
Source of article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090914/ap_on_re_eu/un_nuclear_conference
Highlights of the article:
| Quote: |
| In Washington, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns who was at the Geneva talks would again represent the U.S.
"The point of all this is to sit down with the Iranians and explain directly, face to face, the choice that they have," Kelly said. "They can go down one path, which leads to integration with the international community, or they can continue down another path which leads to isolation. And that's the path that we're concerned that they're on now, because they're not meeting their obligations to the international community." Gibbs, the White House spokesman, suggested any Iranian refusal to discuss demands that it curb enrichment or address concerns about its alleged weapons program could backfire. "If it's something they don't want to talk about, I think that will speak volumes around the world," he told reporters. The U.S. decision to talk with Iran appeared to be part of an attempt to preserve some six-power unity. Permanent Security Council members Russia and China have blocked Western attempts at tougher sanctions, so the agreement to drop insistence on an enrichment freeze and meet with Tehran without preconditions seemed gauged to keep Moscow and Beijing on board. "We have an opportunity here to present a united front the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany to show that the international community wants them to abandon their any plans they have for a militarization of their nuclear program," Kelly said. Reva Bhalla, director of analysis at Stratfor, a U.S.-based global intelligence firm, said those differences pitting Moscow and Beijing against other Security Council members might persist at the talks. But "if Iran doesn't take talks seriously and miscalculates, then you have possibility of these sanctions moving forward," with Russia and China also in favor, he said. World powers other than the U.S. reserved comment. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quoted as urging the international community to opt for toughness, not compromise. "I believe that now is the time to impose harsh sanctions against Iran," he was quoted as saying at a closed meeting of Israel's parliamentary foreign affairs and defense committee. "The Iranian regime is weak," he said, according to an official at the meeting who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was divulging Netanyahu's comments. "The Iranian people would not rally around the regime if they felt for the first time that there was a danger to their regime." |
Scary though. This may be the reason that the US military is still in Iraq, the moment Iraq is completely on its own, Iran is possibly going to be a huge problem. We also have to contend with Obama politics as a constraint while he is trying to get away by the critics in his party who are accusing him of following the previous administration's status quo. Guess that is where the difference comes in between an appeaser and a genuine leader. The verdict is still out on this for me, but hopefully Obama's advisors in foreign policy and the defence would be able to cap his appeasing with a healthy dose of realism.
