Naaah! Get The Hell Outta Here. What Really? Condi? Errr...go Condi?

►"The very act of putting her name to a package of incentives presented in Tehran last month persuaded the Iranian authorities that there was movement that would allow them to proclaim victory over the US, while ending their nuclear programme."

That'd be her putting her name to this:

•http://www.mixx.com/stories/709117/uk_letter_to_iran_through_the_iaea_we_respect_your_right_to_enrich

And none of this would even be happening if Cheney's office in 2003 hadn't have said 'No' to the offer by Iran, under Khatami, of everything that is now being asked of Iran. But who gives a damn if the Iranians think they can claim a little victory if it gets the job done, helps the regional stability and provides a handy way to get out of Iraq. Its not like they don't have a right to enrich. They do. Its not really any victory of the sort but if it means are thawing of relations and a beginning to normalization then what's the problem?

•http://www.mixx.com/videos/344029/cnnvideo_iran_held_out_hand_for_peace_cheney_bit_it_off
•http://www.mixx.com/videos/384878/scott_ritter_on_iranian_nuclear_program
•http://www.mixx.com/videos/348124/john_bolton_wanted_iran_to_expel_weapons_inspectors

Worryingly this does not mean that a war agenda against Persia is canceled. If Israel decides to attack Iran regardless, or if those elements addressed in the submission give Israel a greenish or amberish light to do so allowing the use of Iraqi airspace, then Neo-con America could still have their Iranian war. Such an attack would still provoke an Iranian reaction and that reaction in itself could then be adopted as the neo-con's casus belli.
Not out of the woods yet.

But still....recognition where it is due.
Go Condi.

Comments (2)

- Albionshores
►"The very act of putting her name to a package of incentives presented in Tehran last month persuaded the Iranian authorities that there was movement that would allow them to proclaim victory over the US, while ending their nuclear programme."

That'd be her putting her name to this:

•http://www.mixx.com/stories/709117/uk_letter_to_iran_through_the_iaea_we_respect_your_right_to_enrich

And none of this would even be happening if Cheney's office in 2003 hadn't have said 'No' to the offer by Iran, under Khatami, of everything that is now being asked of Iran. But who gives a damn if the Iranians think they can claim a little victory if it gets the job done, helps the regional stability and provides a handy way to get out of Iraq. Its not like they don't have a right to enrich. They do. Its not really any victory of the sort but if it means are thawing of relations and a beginning to normalization then what's the problem?

•http://www.mixx.com/videos/344029/cnnvideo_iran_held_out_hand_for_peace_cheney_bit_it_off
•http://www.mixx.com/videos/384878/scott_ritter_on_iranian_nuclear_program
•http://www.mixx.com/videos/348124/john_bolton_wanted_iran_to_expel_weapons_inspectors

Worryingly this does not mean that a war agenda against Persia is canceled. If Israel decides to attack Iran regardless, or if those elements addressed in the submission give Israel a greenish or amberish light to do so allowing the use of Iraqi airspace, then Neo-con America could still have their Iranian war. Such an attack would still provoke an Iranian reaction and that reaction in itself could then be adopted as the neo-con's casus belli.
Not out of the woods yet.

But still....recognition where it is due.
Go Condi.
- (0 Kudos received)
- ih8mondays
Uhm, I'm all for working out a diplomatic solution to the current crisis but I just can't shake the feeling that something is off. Neocons suddenly coming to their senses? Really?
- (0 Kudos received)