Ambassador Peter Jenkins, who from 2001 to 2006 was Britain's
Permanent Representative to the IAEA in Vienna, capping a thirty three
year career in the British Foreign Service. If anyone currently
outside government understands the technical complications regarding
nonproliferation, and the policy, he does. The Ambassador says that
(1) the Iranians are only doing things that they are perfectly well
allowed to do under the letter of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
(in other words, if the U.S. and Israel went to war against Iran over
nuclear issues such a war would be far from unambiguously legal); and
(2) that the Iranians offered us a deal back in 2005 that we should
have accepted: in exchange for much more intrusive IAEA safeguards we
would agree that Iran can continue to enrich uranium -- again, under
the letter of the NPT. The Ambassador remembers thinking at the time
that this was a pretty good offer but it wasn't until after he retired
from the British Foreign Service that he changed his mind about Iran,
began exploring the idea's feasibility, and became a proponent. Which
took a great deal of courage. In any case, he is absolutely right. A
compromise within the letter of the NPT is infinitely preferable to
going to war.
This one is important. If you like it, please forward the link.
http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2012/02/how_to_think_about_irans_nucle.html
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment