<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Ledeen&#8217;s Iran Falsehoods	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://totalwonkerr.net/2004/12/01/ledeens-iran-falsehoods/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://totalwonkerr.net/2004/12/01/ledeens-iran-falsehoods/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2004 20:42:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Christopher Paine		</title>
		<link>https://totalwonkerr.net/2004/12/01/ledeens-iran-falsehoods/#comment-7</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher Paine]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2004 20:42:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.totalwonkerr.net/ledeens-iran-falsehoods/#comment-7</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#8220;But it&#8217;s tough to argue that there&#8217;s not at least some basis for believing that Iran may want to deal with the EU3 and eventually give up its fuel cycle facilities.&#8221; Not much of a basis, I&#8217;m afraid. While Ledeen is certainly a fool&#8212;no argument there&#8212;I see little chance that Iran (or for that matter most NPT non-weapon states larger than Libya) would sign a formal undertaking permanently renouncing their current legal &#8220;right&#8221; under the NPT to fully develop develop the peaceful applications of nuclear technology. After all, there are the precedents of Japan, Germany, Holland, and Belgium&#8212;NPT non-weapon state members in good standing with nuclear fuel cycle facilities&#8212;so why should Iran accept anything less. &#8220;Delay,&#8221; &#8220;deferral,&#8221; &#8220;moratorium,&#8221;&#8212;perhaps&#8212;but &#8220;give-up,&#8221; never. And in the current climate, their &#8220;defiance&#8221; on this &#8220;peaceful use&#8221; question is likely to be supported by many other states.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Iran might ultimately be induced to agree if: (a) it perceives that it is agreeing to a new universal norm&#8212;i.e. fuel cycle facilities would be universally understood to constitute an intrinsic part of the &#8220;manufacture&#8221; of nuclear weapons banned under Articles I and II of the NPT, thereby trumping the peaceful use rights under Article IV, which by its own terms must be interpreted &#8220;in conformity with article I and II of this Treaty;&#8221; (b) there is a dramatic improvement in Iran&#8217;s regional security environment, including a complete withdrawal of the threat of US/Israeli conventional military intervention in its internal affairs; and c) the US,Russia,China,Israel, India, and Pakistan&#8212;Iran&#8217;s neighbors all&#8212;do far more to put their nuclear deterrents in some deep dark arms control basement, such that the frequently voiced Iranian fears of &#8220;coercion in a crisis&#8221; no longer seem as relevant&#8212;and real&#8212;as they do today. Of course, every time the Bushies open their mouths, they persuade Tehran of just the opposite.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;But it&#8217;s tough to argue that there&#8217;s not at least some basis for believing that Iran may want to deal with the EU3 and eventually give up its fuel cycle facilities.&#8221; Not much of a basis, I&#8217;m afraid. While Ledeen is certainly a fool&#8212;no argument there&#8212;I see little chance that Iran (or for that matter most NPT non-weapon states larger than Libya) would sign a formal undertaking permanently renouncing their current legal &#8220;right&#8221; under the NPT to fully develop develop the peaceful applications of nuclear technology. After all, there are the precedents of Japan, Germany, Holland, and Belgium&#8212;NPT non-weapon state members in good standing with nuclear fuel cycle facilities&#8212;so why should Iran accept anything less. &#8220;Delay,&#8221; &#8220;deferral,&#8221; &#8220;moratorium,&#8221;&#8212;perhaps&#8212;but &#8220;give-up,&#8221; never. And in the current climate, their &#8220;defiance&#8221; on this &#8220;peaceful use&#8221; question is likely to be supported by many other states.  </p>
<p>Iran might ultimately be induced to agree if: (a) it perceives that it is agreeing to a new universal norm&#8212;i.e. fuel cycle facilities would be universally understood to constitute an intrinsic part of the &#8220;manufacture&#8221; of nuclear weapons banned under Articles I and II of the NPT, thereby trumping the peaceful use rights under Article IV, which by its own terms must be interpreted &#8220;in conformity with article I and II of this Treaty;&#8221; (b) there is a dramatic improvement in Iran&#8217;s regional security environment, including a complete withdrawal of the threat of US/Israeli conventional military intervention in its internal affairs; and c) the US,Russia,China,Israel, India, and Pakistan&#8212;Iran&#8217;s neighbors all&#8212;do far more to put their nuclear deterrents in some deep dark arms control basement, such that the frequently voiced Iranian fears of &#8220;coercion in a crisis&#8221; no longer seem as relevant&#8212;and real&#8212;as they do today. Of course, every time the Bushies open their mouths, they persuade Tehran of just the opposite.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
