Thursday, June 1, 2006

NUKE THE DEAL WITH IRAN

Why cut a deal with an enemy of the Western world? Here is an excerpt from Andy Clarkson's post, Diplomacy With Iran.

Now that is an interesting offer -- we will talk, if they end uranium enrichment. What's in it for Iran? Nothing. Is this a ploy so that the Bush Administration can say they wanted to be diplomatic while at the same time making an offer Iran would refuse? We'll see. (CharlotteCapitalist.com, 06/01/06.)


Here is an quote from Robert Tracinski's commentary, Appeasing the Appeasers:

Within a day of Condi's proposal, the international debate is not—as she had planned—over whether Iran should suspend its enrichment. Instead, as I suspected, the debate is over whether the Bush administration should drop its preconditions for talks with Iran. In other words, having appeased Iran's European appeasers, we are being asked to make even more concessions.

To their credit, both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Sun have identified the proposal as a crucial error. The other good news, according to a New York Times report on the internal White House debate, is that President Bush approved this proposal because he expected it to fail, allowing him to "check off the box" of diplomacy before he can "confront Iran." (TIADaily.com, 06/01/06.)


In the news:


Related: My posts, CONDOLEEZZA RICE AND HER IRANIAN LOVE AFFAIR and RICE IS GETTING SOFT AGAINST IRAN.