It's understandable when I ask my collogues their views on Iran I pretty much get the spectrum. Everything from "Axis of Evil" to "Let them have a seat at the grown-up table." Could there be a reason for this type of differing opinion?
George W. Bush:
"... We hear in Washington, you know, 'prevention means force.' It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy. And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What you're reading is wild speculation. Which is, kind of a -- you know, happens quite frequently here in the nation's capital."
"absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb"
"the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons,"
"...what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy."
"send a common message to the Iranians... to not have a nuclear weapon to blackmail or threaten the world."
"...diplomacy is the number one option" to resolve the dispute with Iran over its nuclear activities."
VP Dick Cheney:
Iran will face "meaningful consequences" if it fails to cooperate with international efforts to curb its nuclear program. Cheney told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee yesterday that the United States "is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime" and is sending "a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
"The United States is pursuing diplomacy to resolve the impasse over Tehran's nuclear ambitions." but said "no options, including military action, were off the table."
Secretary Rice:
"There is simply no peaceful rationale for the Iranian regime to resume uranium enrichment."
"I have said before that I hope that there will be an opportunity for Iranian students to continue to be welcomed in places. I hope that there will be opportunity for Iranian musicians who, if reports are right, can no longer play Beethoven in Tehran, to be outside of Tehran. I would hope that it would be possible for Iranian athletes to be welcomed in places, because this should not be about the Iranian people and I think we will have to look hard at how a strong message is sent that this is really the Iranian regime that is digging into isolation. The Iranian people, frankly, deserve better.*
"we are committed to a diplomatic course that should, with enough unity and with enough strength and with enough common purpose, make it possible to convince the Iranian government to change its course."
"The message is there, the Iranians need to get that message, and we can certainly always remind them that there are other steps that the international community has at its disposal should they not be prepared to live up to these obligations..."
Rumsfeld:
Rumsfeld said the US stands "with the Iranian people, who want a peaceful, democratic future."
I wonder how the Iraqi people feel about that peaceful democratic future they are enjoying today? Well besides the 100K dead and counting that missed their chance to vote.
"The president has decided that he wants to work with the European countries and other nations in the world and see if it isn't possible to have the United Nations and other international organizations ... encourage a behavior pattern on Iran that would be more acceptable to the world..."
"The Iranian regime is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism," he said. "The world does not want, and must work together to avoid, a nuclear Iran."
Sen. McCain:
"Every option must remain on the table," McCain told the security conference after Rumsfeld spoke. "There's only one thing worse than military action, that is a nuclear-armed Iran."
Confused yet? We talk first, we don't negotiate with terrorists, nuclear attack still on the table, sanctions....whew enough to make your head spin. I wonder what the UN has to say about all of this.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan:
"As long as the Iranians have a sense that they are negotiating with the Europeans ad referendum (needing referral for a final decision), and what they discuss with them will have to be discussed with the Americans, and then come back again to them, I am not sure they will put everything on the table..."
The United States has refused to talk directly to Iran but backs the EU diplomacy. "I have asked all sides to lower their rhetoric and intensify diplomatic efforts to find a solution," Annan said.
WHAT ! ! But I thought we said negotiations and a diplomatic solution were preferred. If we are not the ones negotiating then who the hell is?
"I have also stated very clearly both in private and in my contacts with the American administration and publicly that I think it is important that the United States come to the table and that they should join all the European countries and Iran to find a solution,"
Oh dear lord. So all of the rhetoric about solving this on a International level and making honest diplomatic efforts is evident where again? Do we even have a response to this request made by Kofi Annan?
On Wednesday the United States, which has failed to win support for UN sanctions against Iran, announced it would give its European allies "a couple of weeks" to draft a fresh approach to persuading Tehran to drop its disputed nuclear activities. (WaPo)
I guess I understand why some people are confused about where the US stands on Iran. But I am sure we feel better knowing 2 Aircraft carriers are speeding into the region to join with another that has been there for a while. I'm sure it's all a precautionary measure to ensure our freedoms, or what ever the NSA leaves behind for us to enjoy. I would love to be able to offer a solution ar at least a plan of action, but i have no idea what the hell is going on.
