Iran signals it may not strike nuclear deal
Associated Press
Published: 19.10.09, 21:08
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
15 Talkbacks for this article
1. say it together everyone: "SMART DIPLOMACY"
mike ,   israel (formerly usa   (10.19.09)
yes, give the american president a nobel prize for peace or whatever.
2. Iran will not meet Western demands for a deal
Albrecht Klein ,   Germany   (10.19.09)
So why is the west talking with Iran?
MAHMOOD ,   LONDON-UK   (10.19.09)
Which suggests that there may be a way out of it.For Iran to part with the entire stock of enriched uranium is uncalled for knowing how they could be black-mailed.France is on the top of the list and never would Iranians make that kind of mistake.
4. The west should stop playing games...
Marco ,   Spain   (10.19.09)
They know very well what Iran wants in exchange for its nuclear program. Iran wants Dimona and all of Israel's nuclear warheads. Stop beating around the bush. Nothing else will do.
5. What Israel is waiting for
Conker ,   Israel   (10.19.09)
There is nothing Iran can do to harm Israel. Even if Iran launches missiles as a possible reaction to attack on nuclear sites, most of them will be shot down and if few of them hit wrong places, they will risk to get another wave of retalliation from Israel with much more destructive force. More likely scenario is that nothing will happen at all, exactly like when Israel bombed Iraq's reactor and recently Syria's.
6. Nuke iran or let them nuke the world, only option.
Bunnie Meyer ,   Los Angeles, CA USA   (10.19.09)
7. #6 Bunnie Meyer
Marco ,   Spain   (10.19.09)
Hey Bunnie do you live in Hymie town by the Santa Monica freeway last exit before the San Diego freeway (405)? Have a nice day fool, I will see you at the Hague!
8. Iran " no deal"!
devy ,   usa   (10.19.09)
I surely believe that they cast the dice for what is to come. Take off the carrots of the table and bring on the sledge hammer, the sooner the better!
9. #5 not that simple
ben Ish   (10.19.09)
I am all for Israeli pre-emptive strikes. In fact I believe this is the only path that provides a plausible continuation for the State. However, I would not so quickly dismiss the success rate of a pre-emptive sortie of anything more than a dozen MRBM. It doesn't do anyone any good at all to underestimate an enemy just because you don't like him, or because it makes you feel good. For Iran, a 50% failure rate still means a 50% success rate. Even some of the failures may still be successes. Once a ballistic missile reaches apogee, you don't need an impact to verify the ballistic trajectory, because it's a -ballistic- trajectory. Therefore, even the downrange detonations may be considered successful on two counts, even though they were reported as failures. If Iran is allowed to launch 20, with 10 failures, and the IDF hits 50%, then there are still 2 or 3 remaining. The real solution is to disable them before launch, instead of blithely assuming they have no capability at all. With nukes, you only need -one- positive detonation. Right?
10. #5 Conker
Marco ,   Spain   (10.19.09)
Hey Conker, I believe your brains have gone clonker!
11. Thats why you can't wait until they have nukes
Conker ,   Israel   (10.19.09)
And must strike now. Iran will not launch their missiles, (regardless of success rate) and face certain obliteration by Israel. They maybe crazy fanatics, but not complete idiots.
12. Did I tell you that I used to be a clown in a circus?
El Puerco Marco,Puta ,   MadreImperio Español   (10.20.09)
now I am old and lonely and looking for some attention by being outrageous against Jews. It is really not my fault that I sucked in Antisemitism with my mother's milk, blame her not me
13. Which Muslim to believe, the Iranian or the Egyptian?
El Puerco Marco,Puta ,   MadreImperio Español   (10.20.09)
Mohammad The Baradei just said the exact opposite Maybe the Muslims should get together with each other to agree to speak with one voice while Israel gets rid of their nuke facilities
14. to #13 good point, none do anything in Iran
ghostq   (10.20.09)
I could have told them that talking to muslim fanats doesn't work cause they don't listen and they don't have any use for their brain. so that leads to only one option. you said right.
zionist forever   (10.20.09)
Obama was never going to attack Iran but he was at least willing to play the sanctions game. Now he has his Nobel Prize he has to look as peace loving as possible and pushing for very harsh sanctions do not look like the actions of a peace maker. He certainly won't allow hmself to be influenced by any hawks who might say don't hold back Israel if it wants to do something. He is going to get very soft on Iran to try and work out a deal on paper even if this agrement has no teeth. The whole Obama appeasement approach to everything has only made real peace less likely than ever. His policy of blame everything on Israel and bowing down to arab royalty has made the chances of real peace harder than ever. Under Bush Abbas would have sat down with Bibi unconditionally and talked, it may not have gone anywhere but they would have been talking. Abbas knows Obama will take his side no matter what so he can afford to play hardball. All he needs to do is make some demands if Israel doesn't agree Obama will have to step in & take Abbas side because he is desperate to chair peace talks. Americas enemies no longer fear it because Obama is trying to tell everybody we are pacafists, If Bush was too obsessed with war Obama is too obsessed with peace & will be taken advantage of. A good president prefers peace but is willing to go to war if needed. There is no real threats to Irans nuclear threat anymore and they will get them because nobody will try and stop them.
Back to article