Increasingly it seems that the top brass in charge of US Foreign Policy exerts little concern for peace. Perhaps this was destined to be the case after a decade plus of being on a 24 / 7 War footing brought to you by CNN.

When are we going to see an administration that focuses on the vast majority of the poulation's preference for peace - or, maybe I'm being optimistic on that need for peace.

"Gracchus: Fear and wonder, a powerful combination.
Falco: You really think people are going to be seduced by that?
Gracchus: I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it's the sand of the coliseum. He'll bring them death - and they will love him for it. "

Gladiator

Diplomacy by legal dispute resolution. That would be kinda interesting.

Impossible to make binding, but definitely something creative. I like it.

Of course this assumes both parties are willing to abide by the decisions of whomever the adjudicating body is, but I can at least pretend that Iran would at least be reasonable and honest.

Your theory and proposition is fine and dandy between rational people who believe in rule of secular law - not bunch of religious nut heads, who believe in Armageddon, as way for their 7th century mind set and brand of salvation.

These Mullahs couldn't care less to the western system of laws and justice.

You are driven by secular laws. They are driven by fanatic religious laws.

I never said it was a legal matter. I am just looking at a proven method of solving issues with discussions not being held at standstill by ego's. You completely missed the point. That is why I said they should be "qualified".

What I am objecting to is contained in THIS quote:
"For Americans, the concern is technical and legal matters such as the amounts of low- and high-enriched uranium, as well as the type and number of centrifuges in Iran's possession."

The amounts of uranium, their level of enrichment, and the technique used to enrich them are not "legal" matters. The correct word is "political"

American has concerns with Iran's nuclear program, sure, but those concerns are POLITICAL in nature, precisely because the text of the NPT explicitely states that all states have a LEGAL right to enrich uranium.

And if Iran has that right - and it does - then no other country has any legal right to tell Iran how it goes about doing that.

If Iran wants to enrich uranium to the point where the damn country it is completely buried beneath a mountain of highly-enriched uranium then Iran is legally entitled to do exactly that, and nothing in the NPT says that it can't.

As far as the text of the NPT is concerned as it does not divert any of that Vast Pile Of Uranium into a nuclear missile then Iran is legally entitled to do whatever the hell it wants with its uranium ore, and if any other country has a problem with that then that's a POLITICAL issue, not a LEGAL issue.

Honestly, people use words like they were channelling the ghost of Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean, neither more nor less".

No, the nuclear issue really isn't the matter in dispute. That has always been just a pretext. Not only is Iran's nuclear program perfectly legal, and not only does our own intelligence say that there's no indication that Iran wants nuclear weapons, the fact is that Iran has offered many compromises on its nuclear program that went well beyond its obligations under the NPT, to address even the hypothetical chance that it could secretly build nukes (Iran for example offered to open its enrichment program to joint participation with the US and to cap enrichment -- no other country has agreed to that.) The US has however refused to even acknowledge these offers because the last thing the US wants is to resolve the nuclear issue with Iran while leaving the regime in power. ISRAEL (whose name is not mentioned in this article by Limber) demands that the US push for regime change, and the nuclear issue is a pretext just like "WMDs in Iraq" was a pretext. No amount of inspections or compromises by Iran will placate Israel's demand

"The International Atomic Energy Agency issued a critical report Tuesday saying that it has "serious concerns" about Iran's nuclear program and has obtained "credible" information that the Islamic republic may be developing nuclear weapons."

Does anyone know why the IAEA uses a word such as "concerned"?
Anyone?

That's right: the IAEA actually doesn't have a mandate to look beyond the issue of the (non)diversion of nuclear material, and so it can't actually point to anything that Iran has done that has violated any agreement between Iran and the IAEA.

So the IAEA is merely "concerned".

It is a meaningless phrase, and it has been uttered by a USA puppet in reference to "credible" information that has come from.... the USA.

How. Convenient.

"The agency said it had information suggesting Iran had carried out tests "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device"."

Q: And where does this information come from?
A: From the CIA and Mossad.

Q: Any independent confirmation of that information?
A: None, which is why Amano's precedessor would not include it in IAEA reports.

Q: So why has Amano included it?
A: The USA shoe-horned him into that job for that very purpose.

"The UN Security Council has ordered Iran to stop enrichment. Why?"

Because of "concerns".

Q: Is the UNSC entitled to do that?
A: No, according to the UN Charter it can only pass ChVII resolutions when it determines that there is "a threat to the peace".

Q: Has the UNSC announced such a determination?
A: No, never.

Q: Why not?
A: It can't, because the only "evidence" it has is.... Amano's "concerns", curtesy of the CIA and Mossad.

"Because the technology used to enrich uranium to the level needed for nuclear power can also be used to enrich it to the higher level needed for a nuclear explosion."

Yeah, annnnnnnd? That statement happens to be true of *every* country that has a nuclear power program.

Therefore you really need to explain to me what Iran is violating by enriching uranium and, so far, all you have done is point me to Amano's "concerns".

Excuse me for being underwhelmed.

"Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years, so the Security Council says that until Iran's peaceful intentions can be fully established, it should stop enrichment and other nuclear activities."

Your first assertion is incorrect, your second assertion goes beyond the mandate of the UNSC.

"Under international law, an order from the Security Council is held to supersede rights granted by other international organisations."

If you actually bother to read the text of the NPT then you will see that Iran's right to a nuclear power program exists outside of the NPT i.e. it is a pre-existing norm of international law, and neither the NPT nor the IAEA nor the UNSC has any "right" to demand that Iran put a halt to that program.

Or, in short: almost everything that you think you know about this issue is factually incorrect.

JohnBoy-Excellent observations-That IAEA report must be the one from early November, 2011. The best answer to shoot holes in that report was from the Christian Science Monitor,
"Iran Nuclear Report: Why it May Not Be a Game Changer After All", (Nov 09, 2011) and "IAEA's Nuclear Scientist Never Worked on Weapons" (IPS Nov 09, 2011).

Amos-when we see you insulting, we know we will then see all the talking points from IAPAC, WINEP, and the Israeli Likkudnik line.

As opposed to "Actions" thinly veiled as "Sanctions".

Sanctions that impose real physical costs in the form of inflation on Iranian society.

What do we call countries do that because it's kind of like handing Iran the rope.

Not only has the US explicitly threatened Iran with nuclear first strikes in violation of international law as well as US obligations under the "Negative Security Assurance" -- the US provided chemical weapons to Iraq, responsible for the deaths of over 60,000 Iranians, and even tried to shift the blame for Saddam's gassing of the Kurds onto Iran. So who is not "playing by the rules"?

Israel aside. Why Iran's other Arab & Muslim countries (beside Syria) are fearful of nuclear Iran?.

You are defending bunch of religious fanatics in Tehran, who are hell bent of converting the entire ME & Gulf region into one happy religious nuts, controlled by these Mullahs. The problem for them is, the Yahuds are standing in the way, and need to be removed.

Nobody does; it is always paraphrased.

You'd almost think there was a reason behind that reticence.....

Oh, wait, there is a reason why: the text of the declaration clearly says that the "three no's" are in pursuit of The End Of This Israeli Occupation i.e. unless/until Israel agrees to end the occupation then those "three no's" would remain in force.

But once Israel agrees to end the occupation......

"Third, the Arab Heads of State agreed on unifying their efforts in joint political and diplomatic action at the international level to ensure the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied Arab territory This is within the framework of the basic Arab commitment, which entails non-recognition of Israel, no conciliation nor negotiation with her and the upholding of the rights of the Palestinian people to their land. "

Seems pretty reasonable to me i.e. land for peace: agree to end the occupation of Arab land and then - and only then - will we thaw.

Which is not at all the same thing as saying We Will Never Thaw.

A. In case you are not aware of it Israel IS a vital to our strategic interest in that part of the wold.

b. Israel total GDP is $245 Billion. How the hell it can bankrupt an economy of $15,700 Billion?

Khartoum Declaration, Sepember 1, 1967 (Full Text)
The eight Arab Heads of State who attended the Khartoum Conference on Aug. 29-Sept. 1, 1967, were from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq and Yemen. Morocco, Libya, Tunisia and Algeria were represented by their Prime Ministers. Syria, who did not attend, was represented by her foreign minister, Dr. Ibrahim Makhous, at the Foreign Ministers’ Conference which preceded the Summit and drew up its agenda. The Palestine Liberation Organization was represented by Ahmed Shukairy, but the PLO did not sign on to the Declaration, as it disagreed with it.

The Declaration follows:
First, the Conference affirmed Arab solidarity and the unification of Arab joint action in a cordial atmosphere of coordination and conciliation.
The Heads of State reaffirmed their commitment to the Charter of Arab Solidarity issued at the Third Arab Summit Conference in Casablanca.

Second, the Conference affirmed the necessity of concerted joint efforts in the elimination of all traces of aggression on the basis that the recovery of all occupied Arab territory is the joint responsibility of all Arab countries.

Third, the Arab Heads of State agreed on unifying their efforts in joint political and diplomatic action at the international level TO ENSURE THE WITHDRAWAL OF ISRAELI FORCES FROM THE OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORY This is within the framework of the basic Arab commitment, which entails NON-RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL, NO CONCILIATION NOR NEGOTIATION with her and the upholding of the rights of the Palestinian people to their land.

Fourth, the Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil recommended the possibility of using oil as a weapon hi the struggle. The Summit Conference, after careful study, sees that oil export could be used as a positive weapon which would be directed toward the strengthening of the economies of the Arab countries that suffered directly from the aggression.

Fifth, the Conference approved the proposal submitted by Kuwait to establish an Arab Economic and Social Development Bank in accordance with the recommendations of the Arab Finance, Economy and Oil Ministers’ Conference which met in Baghdad.

Sixth, the Conference decided that it is necessary to take all steps to consolidate military preparedness to face the consequences of the situation.

Seventh, the Conference decided to speed up the liquidation of foreign bases in the Arab countries.

(by "Arab territory", they mean the entire state of Israel).

"As the text clearly says, they want to eliminate the effects of "Israeli aggression" within the frame work of "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations." "

That part is correct i.e. according to the Khartoum Declaration the Israeli government can forget about dangling the occupied territories in front of the Arabs to force them to change their publically-stated policy towards Israel.

According to Khartoum the Israelis must
FIRST agree that it is handing back that territory, and
THEN that existing Arab policy is up for grabs.....

That's a perfectly legitimate stance for those Arabs to take.

"Well, That pretty much leaves only one other option...violence and war. "

Nooooooo, that claim is demonstrably untrue, precisely because those same Arab states demonstrated the exact reverse in the two months that followed that conference.

Note this date: the Khartoum Conference was September 1, 1967.

Now, consider this.....
Q: Was any subsequest attempt made to end that occupation that:
a) Did not involve recognizing/peacemaking/negotiating with Israel, and
b) Did not involve "violence and war" to force such a withdrawal?

A: Why, yes. Yes, there was.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, dated November 22, 1967.

That resolution called upon the "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and at no stage during the tortuous drafting of that resolution did any Arab country either recognize/peacemake/negotiate with Israel.

So there we have it: a DIPLOMATIC attempt to end that occupation, supported by all the Arab states, and not a single reference to the threat of "violence and war" to achieve that end.

How terribly inconvenient for your argument, heh?

The Arabs wanted their territory back, and they were dangling the possibly of "peace, recognition and negotiation" to induce Israel to give it back.

Israel wanted "peace, recognition and negotiation", and was dangling the possibility of giving that territory back to induce the Arabs to accept them into the fold.

UNSC Resolution 242 was giving equal weight to both "principles" (as, indeed, it should).

Q: So what went wrong?
A: Israel started furiously colonizing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Desert and the Golan Heights which is, ahem, something of a giveaway regarding their real intentions.

Excellent thoughts-NickGP--One of the first things the US could do is make certain we keep all the Carrier battle groups out of the Persian Gulf. Even go further and pull our Navy out of it's port in Bahrain. They were there because of Iraq and the only thing that would keep them there is the chip on our political shoulder toward Iran.