Comments on: More on Iran suspension https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/09/12/more-on-iran-suspension/ Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:39:42 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 By: CKR https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/09/12/more-on-iran-suspension/#comment-308 Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:39:42 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/more-on-iran-suspension/#comment-308 s got it right as far as one can tell.</p> <p>And it’s not unheard of for one side or the other to maintain its position strongly until it changes that position.</p>]]> It makes sense for the principals to say not much that we peons can interpret if there actually is negotiation going on.

I think Paul’s got it right as far as one can tell.

And it’s not unheard of for one side or the other to maintain its position strongly until it changes that position.

]]> By: J https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/09/12/more-on-iran-suspension/#comment-307 Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:44:35 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/more-on-iran-suspension/#comment-307 I am glad that someone else also noticed that, despite the breathless headlines, Rice did not really say much new. However, the atomospherics on this issue have appeared to change over the past several days, which leads me to think some real movement is emerging from the Solana-Larijani talks.

]]> By: Andy https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/09/12/more-on-iran-suspension/#comment-306 Wed, 13 Sep 2006 04:27:22 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/more-on-iran-suspension/#comment-306 t get it either. Even back in June the idea of a temporary suspension (somewhat redundant terminology there) was reported by <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198578,00.html" rel="nofollow">Fox</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700349.html" rel="nofollow">WAPO</a> and the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/world/middleeast/07iran.html?ex=1307332800&en=70970c421fa64f9f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss" rel="nofollow">NYT</a>.</p> <p>The only thing that’s changed is the talk of a 2-month timeframe.</p>]]> I don’t get it either. Even back in June the idea of a temporary suspension (somewhat redundant terminology there) was reported by Fox, WAPO and the NYT.

The only thing that’s changed is the talk of a 2-month timeframe.

]]> By: hass https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/09/12/more-on-iran-suspension/#comment-305 Wed, 13 Sep 2006 02:25:37 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/more-on-iran-suspension/#comment-305 (suppliers) and ‘have-nots’ (customers) under various proposals to establish multinational nuclear fuel centers and fuel-supply arrangements."<br /><a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/12/opinion/edferguson.php" rel="nofollow">Lining up to Enrich Uranium</a></p>]]> “[I]n rapid succession, Argentina, Australia and South Africa joined a growing list of countries interested in enriching uranium for commercial purposes. That is the same activity that Iran claims as its inalienable right… Driving this process, in part, is the perception that all countries will soon be divided into uranium enrichment ‘haves’ (suppliers) and ‘have-nots’ (customers) under various proposals to establish multinational nuclear fuel centers and fuel-supply arrangements.”
Lining up to Enrich Uranium

]]> By: REGGIE https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/09/12/more-on-iran-suspension/#comment-304 Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:52:46 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/more-on-iran-suspension/#comment-304 this is worth looking at: “http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060911-0721-nuclear-iran-enrichment.html”

]]> By: REGGIE https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/09/12/more-on-iran-suspension/#comment-303 Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:51:13 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/more-on-iran-suspension/#comment-303 This article was a bit more lucid on what may have offered.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060911-0721-nuclear-iran-enrichment.html

]]>