Skip to comments.Bolton rejects ‘grand bargain’ with Iran
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 Irans nuclear programme and Washington has no intention of striking a comprehensive grand bargain with Tehran, the USs 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: Theyve got both feet on the accelerator, which is why we have a sense of urgency that these diplomatic efforts cant 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 countrys 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, thats 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 theres no deal out there, at least no deal that theyve 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 Irans 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 theyre still spinning centrifuges and now theyre putting gas in them, he said.
John Bolton is the best U.N. Ambassador we have ever had.... PERIOD
Luckily we have the right man in the right place at the right time.
Say what you will about Bush, but appointing John Bolten to the UN is almost as important as Conservative judges on the SCOTUS.
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.
He's good to great and I like him, but we also had Jeanne Kirkpatrick. She was no slouch.
Bolton is the best.
Thank God for Bolton.
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.
I agree. He is refreshingly pro-American.
John Bolton for President.
That would smoke the servers over at Kos and DU. I'd like to float the rumor just to see their reactions.
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.
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!!!
Indeed. Jean Kirkpatrick would be proud!
Hear Hear. Bolton is impressive, though.
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.
Who would be the replacement, Dennis (Peace Department) Kucinich?
>>>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.
"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.............
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.
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
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.
Thanks for the info!! Its always great to chat with you.
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.
Hey Iran, the U.S. is getting itchy fingers. You remember those 500 pounders? He heee.
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.
That sounds about right.
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.