A loss for the world

[waste gate]

Unfortunately with every win a loss can be expected.

http://www.jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=6935&ref=daily_briefing

[flintlock]

a loss can be expected. Not for Ahmadinejad.

[Skybird]

What's the news in that? I'm saying this for years. The negotiations are in vain, for the West is too weak to hold them from a position of strength. the strong player in this is Iran - not Europe, and not the US. there is no reason why Iran must accept the goals of Western negotiators. They can simply outsit whatever consequences there will be, and must not fear military action as well. Conventional war/strikes will only delay - if so! - their program, but will not hurt it hard enough to shut it down. That leaves you with only two options left: strike the critical targets with nukes (the political fallout the striker will suffer outclassing the strategical gains), or leave them alone and accept a nuclear-armed Iran. - The irony is that Iran NEEDS nuclear energy (or other sources of energy)indeed. They are consuming so much of their oil themselves, and so cheap, and have to little of it left for export, that economically they cannot survive that way for much longer. They need to free those shares they consume themselves for exporting it and turn it into money. - If they would be less hostile, and more trustworthy and reasonable, so if they wouldn't be Iran, but another kind of country, then international policy already would have admitted this years ago.

[waste gate]

What's the news in that? I'm saying this for years. The negotiations are in vain, for the West is too weak to hold them from a position of strength. the strong player in this is Iran - not Europe, and not the US. there is no reason why Iran mjust acdcept the goals of Western negotiators. They can simply outsit whatever consequences there will be, and must not fear military action as well. Conventional war/strikes will only delay - if so! - their program, but will not hurt it hard enough to shut it down. That leaves you with only two options left: strike the critical targets with nukes (the political fallout the striker will suffer outclassing the strategical gains), or leave them alone and accept a nuclear-armed Iran. - The irony is that Iran NEEDS nuclear energy (or other sources of energy)indeed. They are consuming so much of their oil themselves, and so cheap, and have to little of it left for export, that economically they cannot survive that way for much longer. They need to free those shares they consume themselves for exporting it and turn it into money. - If they would be less hostile, and more trustworthy and reasonable, so if they wouldn't be Iran, but another kind of country, then international policy already would have admitted this years ago.

I didn't expect anything more myself. I just wanted it placed on record that negotiations have failed. The statement coming from the EU should negate any future talk that the US and Israel are wrong for turning to other means of diplomacy.

[Dan D]

I don’t share your estimations. That EU-IRAN negotiations have failed does not necessarily mean that US-IRAN negotiations a priori are futile. You could only say that, if the failure of EU-Iran negotiations already would have proven, that “any” diplomatic talks are bound to failure because Iran is not interested in any kind of diplomatic solution which is what you seem to believe.
Based on the prevailing assumption that Iran has started a nuclear program to develop nuclear weapons, the key point seems to me, that Iran feels threatened by the US which has encircled Iran with troops on the ground in all neighbour countries. Iran does not feel threatened by Europe despite Chirac had indicated to the Iran leadership in the past that France could think of using its nuclear weapons if necessary and despite the fact that the UK has an nuclear arsenal too. Besides, I think that France and Britain indeed are capable of nuking Iran into oblivion, but that is not the point here. Europe had nothing to offer to Iran in negotiation talks, because Iran does not mainly feel threatened by Europe. No one really expected a diplomatic solution by the EU-Iran talks, the purpose was basically to keep the ball in play.

The only possible diplomatic solution that I can see, is the US offering security guarantees to Iran to not attack them. A possible US attack is a strong motivation to develop nuclear weapons for self-defence because as it seems, nowadays you need nuclear arms to make sure that you don’t get attacked, see North Korea, see Iraq.

I’d say, it is unlikely that the US will even start negotiation talks with Iran, because the US refuses to talk with Iran already since the occupation of the US embassy 1979 and the US administration has repeatedly said that it won’t negotiate with Iran.
Because of the negotiations with North Korea, one could speculate whether there will also be a change in US policy towards Iran which we will find out soon anyway.

However, I can’t see it happening that the US will give security guarantees to Iran, at least, as long as Iran does not stop threatening Israel and in general terms comes to its senses.

[waste gate]

I suspect you are correct on all accounts Dan D.
My point is that the EU currently has more to loose (they are or soon will be in range) by a nuclear armed Iran than the US does.

The talks with North Korea seem to have have brought about an agreement. However that agreement would not have been possible without the six party talks. Unilateral talks will not solve the issue and sinse the EU has already given into a fait a compli it, the EU, is complisate in any unilateral action. Also those who will inevitably charge the US or Israel with unilateral action or policing the world must accept that the EU was much involved in negotiotions until it surrendered.

[STEED]

The EU has it's own agenda here in Europe and of course they would like America and Israel to protect them from Iran in the near future or better still now. The world is under going changes and the next 50 odd years are going to be interesting.

[flintlock]

My point is that the EU currently has more to loose (they are or soon will be in range) by a nuclear armed Iran than the US does. Let's be clear on one thing: if a country, from any continent, fires a nuclear weapon intentionally at another nation (regardless of geographical location), we're all going to lose collectively. I fear who loses more will matter little.

[waste gate]

My point is that the EU currently has more to loose (they are or soon will be in range) by a nuclear armed Iran than the US does. Let's be clear on one thing: if a country, from any continent, fires a nuclear weapon intentionally at another nation (regardless of geographical location), we're all going to lose collectively. I fear who loses more will matter little.

Well, let me be clear. The words comming out of Iran suggest that they want to remove Israel from the earth, and would like to destroy the US. I am also aware that arabs and hopefully persians are flowerful and full of bluster in their words. However, past history shows that they believe their own rhetoric and are unable to perceive the weight coming upon them. That puts them at great risk.

Nuclear weapons are existencial in nature, and many believe survivable for certain nations, the EU and Israel not included. That is what brought the former Soviet Union to its knees.

The problem as I see it is that if we, ie the EU, US, Isreal, Saudis and others allow Iran to posses nuclear weapons the options become greatly reduced. Instead of acting as a deterent Iran's possesion of nuclear arms acts as lightning rod. irans weapons can currently strike Israel. If the US, with its policy to defend Israel, were to percive an iminent attack the only useful weapon against a nuclear Iran would be a nuclear weapon.

[Wim Libaers]

It's not just Israel. Several other Islamic (but a different faction) countries in the region do not trust Iran either, and might seriously consider getting their own deterrent if Iran continues like this.