Europe is celebrating the British, French and German foreign ministers' diplomatic coup in Tehran last week. The three foreign ministers succeeded in convincing Iran to agree to suspend uranium enrichment activities and signing the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement, authorizing more intrusive inspections. Most European commentators are hailing this breakthrough as an important achievement for Europe. The Austrian Der Standard called it "the greatest success for European diplomacy in ten years of political union, since the Maastricht Treaty."

---

The Times advises the EU to "hold the champagne," pending Iran's implementation of its promises. The Financial Times cautions that this may simply be "Iran's clever way of buying time," and could be an attempt by Tehran to drive a wedge between the EU, the IAEA, and the US.

---

The Anglo-French-German engagement in Iran has led to a sudden surge in confidence in the efficacy of European soft power and in Europe's ability to forge a common foreign policy.

---

The Financial Times studied the European initiative in Iran, in light of the draft European Union security strategy unveiled by the EU High Representative Javier Solana in June 2003. Solana identified the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as an important objective of the strategy. The Financial Times argues that while it might be tempting to read the Iran agreement as a "powerful vindication of that strategy," such a conclusion is far too premature.

---

This skepticism regarding the efficacy of European diplomacy stems from doubts concerning Europe's ability to secure implementation from its negotiating partners. What will Europe do if Iran fails to follow through on its commitments?

by:Samia Amin



The Europeans have achieved quite a feat, instead of the "Axis of evil" , they have taken the "Axis of peace" stance, they have accomplished without forcing any militaristic power over Iran to halt it's production of uranium enrichment and to allow inspectors into Iran, without having to go to the UN and get a sanction. In comparison to the US' tact with Iran, if you don't do what we say; your goners. That attitude has been proven to be a dangerous one, because instead of those states stopping production they increase it so they can build a deterrence even faster. How far has American policy gone? Frankly with US policy you get reactions like these:

North Korea “is ready enough to undertake a war against the United States, and if the US imperialist dare to provoke North Korea, they will face a bitter defeat.”

---

This is, in fact, little short of declaring war against the DPRK.” He also says, “The option to ‘strike’ imprudently advocated by the US is not a monopoly.”

---

George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address as being “little short of declaring war.”

---

North Korea’s Foreign Ministry releases a statement that rejects George W. Bush’s call for dialogue with the United States. The English version reads, “We are not willing to have contact with his clan which is trying to change by force of arms the system chosen by the Korean people.”

---

“It is the height of sarcasm that the United States unreasonably pulls up the DPRK over its missile plan for self-defense despite the fact that the US is the world’s biggest producer and exporter of weapons and other military equipment.”



Now it might seem as childish rhetoric’s, but never the less we are talking about a failed US policy that instead of making these nations more able to move around, rather constricts them in a corner like a rabid dog, and they will do anything to live. I think Europe has increased credibility then ever before, and she seems truly on the cusp to being a real international force, independent of the US.

Shouldn't you wait to see how such Euro intervention actually plays out before claiming Total Victory?

Ideology and Idiocy probably share the same root.

I regard it rather as a Victory for Teheran diplomacy than a European success. The Iranians managed to divide Europe and America AGAIN, by :

1. Promises that IAEA inspections can be held soon again (but we actually have to see how long it takes before inspectors actually set foot on iranian soil and the iranians by now might have some very hidden shit that the inspectors can't see)

2. The above promise was made only if Europe in turn promised to further help Iran with building its "peacefull" nuclear program DUH! Why would ANY oil country a nuclear program for energy ??? Dirt cheap oil is leaking from the ground, surely nucleair energy could never hope to compete with that on economical grounds alone. It looks like the iranians just ask Europe assistence to further help them build the bomb :p

All in all I think the iranians are masters in buying time, time they need to make their final preparerations for their nuclear arsenal, so that they no longer can be bothered by American millitary supremacy???

it looks a bit like a replay of the WMD chessgame we had with Saddam, only this time there actually MIGHT BE WMD to be found:p

I am sorry Mr. Wolvowitz, you should have atacked Teheran first instead of Bagdad, now it looks like you not gonna get the billions and the political support to drag america in another fight...

The victory Mr.G was the fact that the Europeans were able to convince the Iranians to allow intrusive IAEA inspections on their territory and not having to threaten it with a invasion. That is the victory being touted here, I don't know what you are talking about.

Vortexx

Victory for Teheran diplomacy than a European success

Yes you could very well see it in that light, but regardless here we have a nation that has hasn't given into the US demands for pretty much the same thing. Why? Because it was not dealing with a bellicose nation that has overtly put it on the chopping block. It is rather ignorant for the US to believe that threatening a nation to give up a deterrent is going to work.

Why would ANY oil country a nuclear program for energy ???

Ask the Shah of Iran... he was the one who started the nuclear energy program. Iran population has more then doubled and with increased electrical consumption, and distribution of energy to most of the country what else could Iran do? Now I think Iran could instead use her massive natural gas reserves, but remember Iran makes money selling oil, not consuming it. If I were a major oil producer I would try to make my economy try to be a green one, so I could sell more oil and make more money.

In comparison to the US' tact with Iran, if you don't do what we say; your goners. That attitude has been proven to be a dangerous one, because instead of those states stopping production they increase it so they can build a deterrence even faster. How far has American policy gone? Frankly with US policy you get reactions like these:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Korea “is ready enough to undertake a war against the United States, and if the US imperialist dare to provoke North Korea, they will face a bitter defeat

So what is different now than from the last 50 years. NK has always been willing to undertake war against the US.

The victory Mr.G was the fact that the Europeans were able to convince the Iranians to allow intrusive IAEA inspections on their territory and not having to threaten it with a invasion.

I wonder if Tehran would have felt so inclined without the looming threat of an invasion behind it.

But this bellicose attitude hasn't been in the cards since the late 90's, actually NK was slowly opening up to the west, but the Axis of Evil has changed all that, what has changed is the fact that NK is actually being more belligerant then ever. So obviously the American policy to tame them has failed, do we disagree?

wonder if Tehran would have felt so inclined without the looming threat of an invasion behind it

There is a invasion plan? Do tell...

There is a invasion plan? Do tell...

You mean you didn't know? Go figure. It's been the talk of Sciforums for weeks.

No I did not know, please show me quotes from administration officials and other sources to verify your claim of:

looming threat of an invasion

:confused:

I don't know what you are talking about.
You're not alone in your self-imposed isolation from relativistically equivalent world-views.

No I did not know, please show me quotes from administration officials and other sources to verify your claim of:

looming threat of an invasion

Who said anything about administration? As far as other sources though:

Here's some of your sciforums chatter about a looming threat of an invasion (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28231).

Wow first time my posts been referenced, i feel so special ^_^.

While everyone debates whther this is a European diplomatic success or not I have a question.

Why can't Iran have a nuke if it wants one? India has one, Russia, does, Pakistan has got it and so does Israel. Why not Iran? Why don't we send the inspectors into Islamabad and Delhi?

They signed an agreement not to develop one, but as the Bush government has so conclusively shown, if you don't like an international treaty then just tear it up. Problem solved!

Why can't Iran have a nuke if it wants one? India has one, Russia, does, Pakistan has got it and so does Israel. Why not Iran? Why don't we send the inspectors into Islamabad and Delhi?

They signed an agreement not to develop one, but as the Bush government has so conclusively shown, if you don't like an international treaty then just tear it up. Problem solved!

Apparently the IAEA is fearful that a lot of countries may act on that impulse.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/031030/1/3fg7u.html

Just out of curiosity how many of those 30/40 are on the Axis of Evil list?

Just asking beacause i'm sure most people will agree that if you found yourself on that list and were capable of creating a nuke within a month or so wouldn't you do just that and THEN go for diplomacy?

There would be a hell of a back lash with tounge lashing and finger poking but i'm sure the US would get some flak from the EU and world public over it as well as many will blame their policy for making WMD an attractive detterent to these nations.

As for the country now with them you would feel a bit safer as there wouldnt be any strike on you short of one aimed at taking out your ability to use this Nuke in one go before you can retaliate with it and the currently overstretched US probably couldn't manage it and the EU Coallition probably wouldn't pull it off so you could carry on giving out assurances (Not that anyone will care tbh) that its purely a defence and sit back churning out more whilst pushing for more....even sided resolutions and measures?

I don't hope for this to happen!! i'm for getting rid of all of the damned things (that won't happen in my life time i doubt).

But i just can't help feeling that most of the countries out there given the option to go for diplomacy or diplomacy backed by MAD would go for the latter.

That still doesn't mean shit, it's a sci thread... you said looming threat of invasion can you substantiate that by independent sources, and those within the US administration, if you can't your point is moot.

Psycho-Cannon

Your right, very rarely if ever really has strong armed diplomacy ever worked. To any logical person a nation that is on the verge of having a deterrent would pursue it so those strong armed tactics can't be used again. The war in Iraq has shown how disastrous American policy is, the Isolation that Mr.G was talking about is very much a well put description of American policy.

That still doesn't mean shit, it's a sci thread... you said looming threat of invasion can you substantiate that by independent sources, and those within the US administration, if you can't your point is moot.

There is no real looming threat of an invasion. Only the one that has been speculated on by many, including members of Sciforums, because Iran is on the Axis of Evil list. And the fact that they are on the same list that Iraq was on has likely registered in Tehran. Nobody that I'm aware of in the US administration has said any such thing. What's funny though is that with all your insistance for a source, it is you who basically implied as much yourself early in this thread when you said:

"Yes you could very well see it in that light, but regardless here we have a nation that has hasn't given into the US demands for pretty much the same thing. Why? Because it was not dealing with a bellicose nation that has overtly put it on the chopping block. It is rather ignorant for the US to believe that threatening a nation to give up a deterrent is going to work.

Threatening a nation with what, if not an invasion? Duh.:rolleyes:

No because I said threat you said looming meaning two different things. You insinuated that it will happen, I said it may. There is the difference.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No because I said threat you said looming meaning two different things. You insinuated that it will happen, I said it may. There is the difference.

You can attempt to split that hair as finely as you can get it, but it doesn't change your implication that the US was threatening Iran with invasion, whether you attack 'looming' to it or not. My comment was merely that with all the wild speculation by anti-Americans, including those here such as yourself, Iran might feel that the possibility of an invasion was a real possibility. But go a head and continue to try and distance yourself from the meaning of what you implied if it makes you feel better.

I am not anti-American whom are you to decide what I am? Secondly it's really quite simple you said what u said, you meant invasion was going to happen, and now that you can't sustain that claim you are reverting to ad homing me. Splitting hairs...eh? Well what is there to split when it is overtly in my face telling me that invasion is going to happen. Either you’re in a state of reality suppression and not willing to accept what you meant, or you’re going to ad nauseam this thing so it makes sense to you. Don’t make up semantics, it rather pathetic even more then sciforums as a independent source.

I am not anti-American whom are you to decide what I am?

I stand corrected. I should have said you're anti-Bush. FTR, so am I, but that's beside the point.

Well what is there to split when it is overtly in my face telling me that invasion is going to happen.

That's your own problem with comprehension, or interpretation, whichever the case. Speaking of the threat of an invasion as possibly influencing the Iranians to comply with the Europeans is not "overtly in [your] face" saying that "an invasion is going to happen." Now you're actually trying to say I said there would be an invasion if the Iranians didn't comply. Nice try, but no. All I ever implied was that the threat was there. You asked where I got such info and I noted that you could get it right here on Sciforums, which I linked, including your own comments, which is what makes it so damn funny.

Stop rationalizing what u said... it's overt, it's obvious, I won't continue this support of your rather pathetic ad nauseam argument, why don't u just admit that looming was the incorrect terminology, then we may move on. :D

Stop rationalizing what u said... it's overt, it's obvious, I won't continue this support of your rather pathetic ad nauseam argument, why don't u just admit that looming was the incorrect terminology, then we may move on.

*note to nico - from Webster's: 'loom'; to seem to be threatening or imminent

Take notice so you won't be confused any longer. To seem to be threatening or imminent, not definite. In other words, there is no real indication of an invasion, there was only talk of an invasion by those, such as yourself, who indicated the US might invade Iran as it did Iraq, since it too was on the AofE list. But hey, if it will make you feel better, I'll pretend 'looming' was not the best terminology to use if you will admit that you were one of the ones guilty of promoting the possibility of such an invasion in the first place. Especially since your printed words show that you're guilty of it anyway.;)

True it does say "seem", but if you look at this "imminent" it seems that it will happen. That is what I was getting at; you insinuated that it was imminent. A threat is nothing more then a rhetorical claim:

Threat

-An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
-An indication of impending danger or harm.
-One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

Looming is a impending action, threat is a impending rhetorical bull shit. But anyways let's go back to the argument at hand please. Damn I hate semantics.

That is what I was getting at; you insinuated that it was imminent.

No, that's only your interpretation of what I meant. I said maybe they were motivated by the looming threat of an invasion. I never implied that an invasion would be forthcoming if they refused to comply. From what you just posted...


Threat

-An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.

...threat is merely an expression, which doesn't mean it will be acted on. NK has threatened to use nukes, which may or may not mean she will actually do so, as she may just be posturing for concessions from the US. In the case of the US and Iran, it is not even the US who has openly threatened Iran with invasion, I merely referred to the talk of the possibility of an invasion on Sciforums. And further from what you just posted on 'threat'...

-One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

'Possible' danger, or in this case, invasion, does not mean 'imminent' danger or invasion. And again it goes back to the fact that, as far as I'm aware, the US has not openly threatened Iran with invasion, so there would be no reason for me to imply as such (which I never did as a scan of earlier posts shows). Damn, this really has gone a lot further than my original intent, which was merely to imply that possibly Iran acted on the Europeans appeal because it may have feared a 'potential', but not 'imminent' invasion.

was merely to imply that possibly Iran acted on the Europeans appeal because it may have feared a 'potential', but not 'imminent' invasion.

Thank you, that's all I needed to hear. :D Why didn't you just say that earlier? You were being stubborn that's why. :p And spkye why explain threat to me when I admitted it was pure Rhetoric’s? :bugeye:

Why didn't you just say that earlier?

Uhh, I did say that earlier. That's what I said in my original post.;) You're the one that turned it into a pissing contest by insisting on a source, yet when I gave you a source you then began arguing on the meaning of 'looming'.:bugeye:

And spkye why explain threat to me when I admitted it was pure Rhetoric’s?

Maybe because you misinterpretated what a threat actually means, which became obvious when you said "you insinuated that it [i]was imminent." Don't think I enjoy having to take the time to explain simple statements to you.:rolleyes:

/me steps into the firing line

In Spykes defence in linking to my original post (which in turn cited the original independent source) he did kind of give you the post to a source AND a thread with a discussion on said source which i would of thought more constructive ^_^

/me tries to hot foot it out of the firing line