Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bolton rejects ‘grand bargain’ with Iran
Financial Times (UK) ^ | 09JUN06 | Daniel Dombey

Posted on 06/09/2006 8:04:57 PM PDT by familyop

Time is running out for the diplomatic effort to resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme and Washington has no intention of striking a comprehensive “grand bargain” with Tehran, the US’s ambassador to the United Nations has warned.

Speaking to the Financial Times, John Bolton made clear many of his reservations about the current outreach to Iran, which Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, has persuaded President George W. Bush to endorse.

Referring to a report by the United Nations nuclear watchdog that Iran has stepped up uranium enrichment – a process that can create both nuclear fuel and weapons grade material – Mr Bolton said: “They’ve got both feet on the accelerator, which is why we have a sense of urgency that these diplomatic efforts can’t continue indefinitely . . . Each day that goes by gives Iran more time to continue to perfect its efforts for mass production.”

While Iran insists that its nuclear programme is a purely peaceful attempt to bolster the country’s energy security, the US and the European Union suspect Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

But Russia and China have repeatedly made clear their doubts about sanctions against Tehran, pushing Washington instead to back a new package of incentives to Iran, which would give the Islamic republic help in a number of areas, including in constructing nuclear reactors.

The US has also agreed to join the negotiations with Iran, if Tehran suspends enrichment.

Mr Bolton, who describes himself as “not much a carrots man”, was quick to play down expectations of a dramatic breakthrough and highlighted many of the problems facing the diplomatic process.

“It would be a mistake to think these negotiations are a first step towards some kind of grand bargain [involving US recognition],” he said. “We are only addressing the nuclear issue and stopping their pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

He said US security guarantees for Iran were “not on the table”, and argued instead that regime change could remove a nuclear threat: “Our experience has been that when there is a dramatic change in the life of a country, that’s the most likely point at which they give up nuclear weapons.”

He added: “I think there will certainly be discussion of the question at the G8 summit” on July 15-17, by which time he said Iran had to make its response to the offer known.

“Some people thought for three years they [Iran] wanted to do a deal and there’s no deal out there, at least no deal that they’ve adhered to,” he said. “Maybe the deal that they want is the best of both worlds.”

Mr Bolton also voiced doubts that International Atomic Energy Agency inspections would be able to prove that Iran’s programme was purely peaceful, and said that sanctions against Iran if it declined the offer were “a step in the process”. But he also conceded that he could not predict whether the Security Council would back such a measure.

He said the EU, which conducted negotiations with Iran from 2003, had been embarrassed by a declaration by a former Iranian official that during that time the Islamic republic had worked on nuclear techniques.

“It shows why even as they sit contemplating this recent offer they’re still spinning centrifuges and now they’re putting gas in them,” he said.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: ambassador; bolton; enrichment; iran; nuclear; on; proliferation; terror; uranium; war; weapons

1 posted on 06/09/2006 8:05:01 PM PDT by familyop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: familyop

John Bolton is the best U.N. Ambassador we have ever had.... PERIOD


2 posted on 06/09/2006 8:10:11 PM PDT by MJY1288 (THE DEMOCRATS OFFER NOTHING FOR THE FUTURE AND THEY LIE ABOUT THE PAST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Mr Bolton, who describes himself as “not much a carrots man”

Luckily we have the right man in the right place at the right time.

3 posted on 06/09/2006 8:10:24 PM PDT by burzum (Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.--Adm. Rickover)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop
He said the EU, which conducted negotiations with Iran from 2003, had been embarrassed by a declaration by a former Iranian official that during that time the Islamic republic had worked on nuclear techniques.

Say what you will about Bush, but appointing John Bolten to the UN is almost as important as Conservative judges on the SCOTUS.

4 posted on 06/09/2006 8:10:58 PM PDT by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

The state department has been our worst enemy when dealing with these guys. I thought Condo was going to fix it, but she is crapping all over the U.S. just like her predecessor.


5 posted on 06/09/2006 8:15:00 PM PDT by mirkwood (Gun control isn't about guns. It's about control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

He's good to great and I like him, but we also had Jeanne Kirkpatrick. She was no slouch.


6 posted on 06/09/2006 8:16:00 PM PDT by garyhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Bolton is the best.


7 posted on 06/09/2006 8:16:40 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand; but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc. 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garyhope

Very true


8 posted on 06/09/2006 8:17:18 PM PDT by MJY1288 (THE DEMOCRATS OFFER NOTHING FOR THE FUTURE AND THEY LIE ABOUT THE PAST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Thank God for Bolton.


9 posted on 06/09/2006 8:18:19 PM PDT by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Well I'm going to predict that the Iranians will not come to the table and deal.

The question will then become, now what?

And I don't place much hope in the UN for coming up with a solution either.

In spite of the clear dangers the next question I am going to ask presents, and I will state clearly that I do understand those dangers, is it not time to begin openly discussing a nuclear strike on Iran? I am very serious in what I propose. We will ultimately have to face the fact that if we don't launch one, we will all just be sitting and waiting for the moment when Iran does.

This is a moment for us to make the doctrine of preemption as well understood as we possibly can.
10 posted on 06/09/2006 8:21:32 PM PDT by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop
“They’ve got both feet on the accelerator....."

Good. It doesn't make the vehicle go any faster, but it drastically slows your reaction time when you need to brake and avoid a crash.

11 posted on 06/09/2006 8:22:23 PM PDT by edpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: operation clinton cleanup

I agree. He is refreshingly pro-American.


12 posted on 06/09/2006 8:22:29 PM PDT by PghBaldy (If my ancestors acted like the current crop of "immigrants", you would have to "press 2" for Polish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: familyop

John Bolton for President.


14 posted on 06/09/2006 8:24:53 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

15 posted on 06/09/2006 8:26:08 PM PDT by Cinnamon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Bahahaha....

That would smoke the servers over at Kos and DU. I'd like to float the rumor just to see their reactions.

16 posted on 06/09/2006 8:26:45 PM PDT by edpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon
What a silly cartoon. Bolton would never bother to knock.

;-)

17 posted on 06/09/2006 8:28:12 PM PDT by edpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon

LOL. I saw him on Fox the other day. Reminds me of why I love the President so. I may not always agree with him, but he's done a heckuva lot of good for this country. We have had some great appointments, but this one in particular is a keeper.


18 posted on 06/09/2006 8:29:45 PM PDT by PghBaldy (If my ancestors acted like the current crop of "immigrants", you would have to "press 2" for Polish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

No, we should never plan a nuclear strike on Iran. There are millions of Iranians that like and respect Americans, and we would be making serious mistake in harming these good folks. The key would be a severe attack and destruction of Syria, taking out their armed forces and civilian population by the millions. Syria needs a good lesson, and if their people cannot overthrow their government, then so be it!!! When a nation commits itself to war, the object is total victory. Syria should be sent to hell, and maybe the Iranians will get the message as to reality in this world. However, it would even be better if we found Bin Laden and his ilk and slaughtered them all. I think the Iranians would begin to get the message!!!


19 posted on 06/09/2006 8:33:57 PM PDT by JLAGRAYFOX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy
I agree. He is refreshingly pro-American.

Indeed. Jean Kirkpatrick would be proud!

20 posted on 06/09/2006 8:38:32 PM PDT by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JLAGRAYFOX
If Iran can't get the message when we've taken over two terrorist supporting countries on their borders, they won't get the message from us pounding Syria.
21 posted on 06/09/2006 8:45:20 PM PDT by burzum (Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.--Adm. Rickover)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: garyhope

Hear Hear. Bolton is impressive, though.


22 posted on 06/09/2006 9:08:44 PM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy (It's a fight to the death with Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: operation clinton cleanup

Unfortunately, Bolton will be gone from the UN in 7 months unless the Republicans can pull off a miracle and increase their majority in the Senate.


23 posted on 06/09/2006 9:29:44 PM PDT by tlj18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tlj18

Who would be the replacement, Dennis (Peace Department) Kucinich?


24 posted on 06/09/2006 9:38:05 PM PDT by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: edpc

>>>That would smoke the servers over at Kos and DU. I'd like to float the rumor just to see their reactions.<<<

LOL. Go for it. Bolton would straighten this country out quickly. He is a patriot, not a politician.


25 posted on 06/09/2006 9:39:44 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JLAGRAYFOX
I do appreciate your sentiments, but I doubt world opinion would do anything but condemn us in even more vociferous terms if we turned on Syria to convince Iran we're serious. We've gone to the UN, we've attempted to make the process work and if the process proves worthless we can tell the rest of the world that we tried to work within the framework established to handle these kinds of disputes.

And part of my thinking in what I posted is that I do not expect Israel to sit quietly and do nothing while Iran builds a nuclear weapons program. One top mullah in Iran stated a couple of years ago that the weapons would be used against Israel, Ahmadinejad has stated publicly that Israel "should be wiped off the map," and there is already a long history of Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas to drive the point home to the Israelis that the Iranian leadership means what they say. Does anyone really think the Israelis don't believe the Iranians?

I also fear the possibility that innocent Iranians will suffer if it comes to our exercising the nuclear option, but at some point a nation's people has to be held accountable for the leaders who run their country, even if those leaders maintain control by extra-democratic means.
26 posted on 06/09/2006 9:56:39 PM PDT by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Why are we bargaining with Iran? The longer the delay, brings them closer to the bomb.Its crazy.
27 posted on 06/09/2006 10:03:56 PM PDT by garbageseeker (Vincit Omnia Vertas- translation:Truth Conquers All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

"a new package of incentives to Iran, which would give the Islamic republic help in a number of areas, including in constructing nuclear reactors."
Am I missing something here ? we want them to abandon their nuclear intentions so we offr them help with constructing nuclear reactors?????????????????
I'm lost here.............


28 posted on 06/09/2006 10:10:00 PM PDT by Tiberius109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

Why talk about a nuclear option? Conventional bombing is now capable of a level of destruction that no one dreamed of during the Vietnamese War.


29 posted on 06/09/2006 10:13:21 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: garbageseeker
"Why are we bargaining with Iran? The longer the delay, brings them closer to the bomb.Its crazy."

Here's my opinion on the situation.

It's drama for the purpose of convincing certain nihilistic, nay-saying, appeasing countries that do much trade with Iran and have wanted to see Israel destroyed since, at the latest, the 1940s. The governments of those countries are now being allowed to exhaust attempts at their desires by being fronted as negotiators.

The play is nearly finished. There will soon be sanctions by some (not all) countries and a blockade (to enforce those sanctions), then the eventual destruction of Iran's military. Our President said that Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Our offense and defense weapons and personnel are far more accurate in many ways than they were in the past.

The first air missions will be virtually (that is, for all practical purposes) done and successful before we know about them. Military communications, radars, defense weapons and nuclear facilities will be destroyed. Some Persian assets (our assets) might even call/mark targets. The Iranian ground forces will be cut into leaderless, small pieces. If scattered enemy military individuals seek to hide in the mountains, they will be allowed to do so until thirst, hunger and disease catches up with them. Meanwhile, Iran will get a new and enthusiastic government that has already been planned to the person.
30 posted on 06/09/2006 10:42:36 PM PDT by familyop ("Either you're with us, or your with the terrorists." --President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: familyop
I do Agree.

But I think that the Israelis should do it. No by using pilots but by using their Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 missiles, nuclear tipped,on nuclear and command and control facilities.
31 posted on 06/09/2006 10:46:04 PM PDT by garbageseeker (Vincit Omnia Vertas- translation:Truth Conquers All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: garbageseeker

I agree in that we are rather soft these days. Avoidance of civilian casualties has its benefits, though (lower intensity conflict tactics resulting in using fewer troops, for one).

Here's a relevant other post. There's a reason for public disclosure of the general Taiwan plan (but not a specific plan, of course). I've joked good naturedly, at times, about our Navy (having been Army myself). But our Navy is nothing for foreign forces to even try messing with, even if all possible antagonists were to try a syncronized attack against it.

US plan for defending Taiwan disclosed
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1646697/posts


32 posted on 06/09/2006 10:57:38 PM PDT by familyop (Essayons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: garbageseeker

Oh, and BTW, Israel is helping (publicized reports of Israel intel). And my guess is that Israel will surely be putting a lot of money and materiel into the tougher part of the job later. ...only my guess, but we'll wait and see to be sure.

Remember the Iranian leaders' threats to destroy Israel, related other comments on their part, and lack of western European concern for Israel.

Calls by many of our own for leaving Israel to the Islamo-fascist dogs will also contribute to letting Israel shove enormous amounts of ordnance down the new fascist sites. That and western Europe's absence of assistance in Iran should answer the question of alliances.


33 posted on 06/09/2006 11:11:54 PM PDT by familyop (Essayons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Thanks for the info!! Its always great to chat with you.


34 posted on 06/09/2006 11:16:56 PM PDT by garbageseeker (Vincit Omnia Vertas- translation:Truth Conquers All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JLAGRAYFOX
"There are millions of Iranians that like and respect Americans, and we would be making serious mistake in harming these good folks."

This sounds like a terrorist's fighting plan, take pot shots at U.S. troops while standing directly behind innocent women and children that they know U.S. troops won't fire on. I think it's time to stop this ridiculous thinking and get on with the war.

Harry Truman was a liberal Democrat, but he had the brains and good sense to realize that killing innocent Japanese meant saving the lives of innocent Americans. Bush should come to the same conclusion soon, before it's too late and Iran is holding the entire world hostage with its nuclear arsenal.

35 posted on 06/09/2006 11:20:42 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Hey Iran, the U.S. is getting itchy fingers. You remember those 500 pounders? He heee.


36 posted on 06/10/2006 12:07:11 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

I'd give it a 20% chance of a pre-emptive strike about mid-Novembet.

I'd give it a 50% chance of a pre-emptive strike next Spring.



37 posted on 06/10/2006 5:23:40 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

November.


38 posted on 06/10/2006 5:23:58 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
I'd rate the odds as follows:

85% that the UN and International Community will NOT convince the Iranians to accept a deal.

If that 85% probability plays out:

10% that we strike the Iranians ourselves before January 1, 2007. Bush probably doesn't want this as a part of the State of the Union, even though Israel will be very anxious.

60% that we strike them in the Spring.

25% the Israelis strike them -- whenever.

5% the Iranians are left alone to develop nuclear weapons.
39 posted on 06/10/2006 11:27:26 AM PDT by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

That sounds about right.


40 posted on 06/12/2006 7:56:11 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Iran issue: Moscow shocked over US accusation

Moscow, June 11 (UNI): Russia has expressed shock over the comments by US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, accusing the Russian leadership of lacking a consensus over the Iranian nuclear issue.

"Moscow is actively involved in international efforts to solve the problem through diplomatic channels, and holds a unified position that Iran must not obtain nuclear weapons, while supporting the right of the country to develop peaceful nuclear energy," Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

"Russia was pleased with the balanced and responsible announcements in recent days from the US representatives in support of re-starting the talks on Iran's nuclear programme in the new format, which Washington recently expressed its willingness to join," the statement pointed out.

"In this context, the 'revelation' made by Bolton on the alleged lack of consensus within the Russian leadership on the issue of the Iranian nuclear programme is very unexpected," it stressed.

"Those in Washington who support finding a political-diplomatic solution, which we would hope includes John Bolton, need international support, including from Russia," the statement added.

41 posted on 06/12/2006 12:00:55 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson