In recent weeks we've again seen an escalation of US/Israeli threats to attack Iran. Among many other examples, the House of Representatives is currently considering a resolution promoted by AIPAC that would effectively demand a blockade against Iran. This resolution has over 200 co-sponsors, although a surge of opposition has prevented it from being passed so far. (The resolution is H. Con. Res. 362; you can ask your Representatives to oppose it here.)
Here's what those promoting military attacks and blockades on Iran don't want Americans to know: there's an offer on the table that could resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program and allow both sides to claim victory.
In this short interview, former US Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering makes the case for talks with Iran without pre-conditions on multilateral uranium enrichment in Iran.
In March, Ambassador Pickering co-authored "A Solution for the US-Iran Nuclear Standoff" in the New York Review of Books. Pickering and his co-authors wrote:
"We propose that Iran's efforts to produce enriched uranium and other related nuclear activities be conducted on a multilateral basis, that is to say jointly managed and operated on Iranian soil by a consortium including Iran and other governments. This proposal provides a realistic, workable solution to the US-Iranian nuclear standoff. Turning Iran's sensitive nuclear activities into a multinational program will reduce the risk of proliferation and create the basis for a broader discussion not only of our disagreements but of our common interests as well. "
On May 31, the Boston Globe interviewed Iran's Ambassador to the UN, who said that Iran "would not suspend its own enrichment program, but would consider establishing an internationally owned consortium inside Iran that could produce nuclear fuel with Iranian participation." The Globe noted in a follow-up piece on June 10 that Iran had proposed this idea in its May 13 letter to the UN calling for comprehensive negotiations, that the proposal was broadly similar to the Pickering proposal, and that Iran's UN Ambassador had said that the details should be negotiated.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't read the New York Review of Books or the Boston Globe. So, while polls consistently show most Americans want negotiations with Iran to resolve the nuclear dispute, most Americans don't know that there's an offer on the table right now to resolve the nuclear dispute that the US government is walking away from.
Help spread this video so Americans can learn that there's a plan on the table right now to resolve the nuclear dispute. Let's not wait until after the devastation of another illegal war to discuss the fact that there was a diplomatic alternative.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
Russ Wellen: World's Worst Nuclear Proliferator? Better Stay Away from Mirrors
The Bush administration likes to think of itself as nuclear policeman to the world.
Ted Sorensen: The Obama-Kennedy Nuclear Policy
There are a number of steps facing Obama to reach the Kennedy dream of a nuclear-free world. It is not only a diplomatic, political or military issue. It is indeed, a moral imperative.
they live in a tuff neighborhood and we constantly remind them who's owns the oil in charge
if they get a bomb it's a regional issue. it would give israel a minor headache, but considering how lopsided things are, they don't have much to worry about.
if iran gets a Bomb it will be literally -- "a-bomb"
as apposed to hydrogen bomb detonated by "a-bomb"
hydrogen bombs come in the megaton range
a-bombs only come in the kiloton range
it wouldn't take much to ruin isreals day -- but then again, they have enough hydrogen bomb firepower to destroy Iran and iran isn't retarded
plus, iran does not have the missil technology to hit anything farther then isreal yet
I refuse to lose any sleep about this non-issue
we just need them to prove they're not making a bomb and we'll go away
this is "check" to the moves of aipac , israel and neoconmen america. of course check mate would be bombing iran anyway. in fact , this proposal will probably speed up the mission rendering the proposal a moot point.
it is, however, a real breakthrough in media that this conversation is permitted on a widely respected forum. it was only a coupla years ago that this conversation could only be held on "fringe" web sites.
This offer is on par with Khatami's phony dialogue of civilizations that had Clinton and Western Europe deceived that the mullahs wanted to ditch their revolution and integrate with the world. Given the fact that Russia is selling Iran nuclear fuel at rock bottom prices to fire the Russian built power station that's coming on line next year the mullahs don't need the huge expense of enriching uranium unless its for a larger purpose. This plan is a transparent ploy to buy the mullahs more time to build the bomb which they are hell-bent on getting.
Would we back off building a nuclear force?
The hell we would. We would be digging tunnels under every mountain in the US and put centrifuges there. Breeder reactors would populate the North American prairies.
So why do you expect them to back off? If I were them, and I am a peace loving fella, I would double, triple and quadruple my efforts to get my hands not on one bomb but on four dozen. And so would you.
So let's stop the double talk. Iran can not be contained. And in the end we have no right to contain them as long as we threaten everyone without a bomb and go six rounds of "allies of mine" with those powers who have them.
The little cowards in the MSM want their pay checks and their mansions on Cape Cod more the their integrity or saving our democracy.
hmm, i wonder why..?