Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

161 thoughts on “Nuclear Negotiations with Iran

1 2 3 6
  • Clark

    But Craig, what would you have with which to negotiate? All Iran seems to have available to offer is (1) giving up enrichment of uranium to 20% and (2) permitting IAEA access to a small part of one site. Neither of these is worth very much.

    These things seem unlikely to be the motive for the immense pressure upon Iran. Presumably, the real objectives of “the West” have to do with markets and hydrocarbons. If Iran lose control of their hydrocarbon production, they’re going to need uranium enrichment to maintain the security of their energy supply.

  • Summerhead

    Just a thought from an ignoramus: Iran appears to have huge stocks of gold; could they be secretly planning something similar to Gaddafi’s African Gold Dinar?

  • Uzbek in the UK

    It is true that for nuclear free Middle East no side should have a preponderance which Israel currently has. But for peaceful Middle East it seems that general agreement (between Muslim states) is that state of Israel should seize to exist. Is this also acceptable?

  • Clark

    Uzbek in the UK, 10:53 am:

    “But for peaceful Middle East it seems that general agreement (between Muslim states) is that state of Israel should [cease] to exist. Is this also acceptable?”

    The state of Israel has to cease existing in its current form in any case, simply on moral considerations. “Cease to exist” vs. “change beyond recognition”; is there really a difference? Beyond that, it’s just a matter of what the place is called.

  • DoNNyDarKo

    I agree Clark, Israel has already made a 2 state solution impossible, so at some point in the future their Arab/palestinian / Semite Bedouin and refugee polpulations will have to be given citizenship.That’s when the exclusive State which is an invention will become a proper Nation. they can call it what they want and make a new flag. Palestinian flag with a star of david in the top left corner ?? Why not ?
    but for now, The Jewish State is exclusive and is twanging the wires of the IAEA,as is shown with the UN rep. hightailing to Tel Aviv after every encounter.
    Israel will continue to not negotiate on something they dont admit to having. They want to be the regional bully with no answer to their dictats.The nuclear issue with Iran is a red herring for joe public so’s all options are always on the table.
    Wish Craig was a negotiator. It would mean that their was some conviction going to the meetings.

  • Uzbek in the UK

    “Cease to exist” vs. “change beyond recognition”; is there really a difference?

    Well yes, there is. And there are dozens of examples in history and Iran itself is a good one. There have been number of states and even civilizations in Iran (including current one) but Iranian people still have their country, something they call motherland. Nobody expects people to give up that. Changes of government is acceptable as well as changes of ideology but expecting people to give up their motherland is something extraordinary.

    While Israel which is surrounded by Muslim states (Arabs and Iran) is expected to give up that (motherland) is should not be expected that Israel will give up its preponderance.

  • Andy

    Why are the Israelis objecting to the announcement today of an Argentinian/Iranian commission to investigate the 1994 bombing of a Jewish Centre? Surely this is a positive move to uncover the truth?
    Uzbek: Haven’t the Palestinians been forced to accept an ever-decreasing ‘motherland’ because Israel demands a larger ‘motherland’? No one should be fooled by Israeli refusals to negotiate with the Palestinians. All the time there is no agreement Israel seizes Palestinian land. They fill in water wells , they demolish their homes and create IDF training zones…. Indeed any excuse to steal more land.

  • Uzbek in the UK


    I think that Iran needs more than PR and Vladimir Posner. Posner’s (who accidently is half Jew) propaganda became touchy only when Soviet policy towards the world changed following changes introduced by Gorbachev. Posner became effective speaker only when changes to Soviet’s behaviour came from above.

    Also in his autobiography ‘Parting with Illusions’ Posner accepted that his words were lies and that he was speaking not from his heart but from his mind. There were number of other interviews where Posner accepted that he lied and regretted about his past doings.

  • Arbed

    Andy, 12.15pm

    “Why are the Israelis objecting to the announcement today of an Argentinian/Iranian commission to investigate the 1994 bombing of a Jewish Centre?”

    Because they know who was really behind it?

  • Uzbek in the UK


    What Israelis are doing to Palestinians is wrong and unacceptable. But in core of the problem is Israel’s relations with the Muslim neighbours and above all with Iran and also relations of the Muslims nations between themselves (Sunnis and Shias). Other side of the problem that there is no single front of Muslim states demanding real terms of negotiations with Israel. What appears to be true is that Muslim states have no interests in helping Palestinians. What is evident from the history of the conflict is that Muslim states use Palestinians and their problems with Israel to get something out of this for themselves.

    If Muslim states were to unite (at least in Palestinian question) and put real demands to Israel (not that the state of Israel should cease to exist) that occupied territories must be returned and that Palestinians must be treated equally within Israel and have right to self determination and start real peace negotiation process then it might all work out in time.

  • Andy

    Arbed: They could watch the proceedings , wait until they report their findings and then criticise their investigation methods but surely any attempts to uncover the truth should be welcomed.

    “Opposition legislator Ricardo Gil Lavedra said co-operating with Iran was a mistake.

    “The bombing is being debated with the Iranian government, which ordered it,” he said.”

    It seems some people already know the outcome.

  • Michael Stephenson

    DoNNyDarKo – A single state solution is wildly unrealistic, any situation that would allow the return of 5,000,000 displaced Palestinians and effectively hand a voting majority and the helm of the country over to the Muslim population is simply off the table.

    While it may be the most moral solution it simply is cloud cuckoo land stuff. The Jews have the power in Israel and they have worked too hard implementing racist immigration policies to ensure a Jewish majority to give it up on a whim.

    A two state solution may just be an achievable outcome to improve the lives of Palestinians, talk of a 1 state solution is just a waste of time.

  • Arbed

    Hi Andy, 12.47pm

    What I meant is that there’s a lot of talk around about this particular bombing being a classic false flag op. If certain parties don’t want a full investigation into something where the culprits – on the face of it – are already known, that may well be because those parties already know that the people being blamed for the atrocity are NOT the people who actually were responsible.

  • Chris2

    “A single state solution is wildly unrealistic, any situation that would allow the return of 5,000,000 displaced Palestinians and effectively hand a voting majority and the helm of the country over to the Muslim population is simply off the table…”

    The alternative of a two state solution, whether desirable or not, is no longer viable. The fascists, and I use the term advisedly, who run Israel have ensured that. Like the Germans before them who, lamenting that their people had no space in which to prosper, set out to cleanse Poland and Ukraine of Slavs and Jews, the Israelis, claiming that they have no homeland, are practising genocide on the indigenous Palestinians.
    Both took their inspiration from British, and, later, US practises in north America, Australia and elsewhere where it was deliberate, avowed policy to kill off the natives, with any surviving scraps of their races being incorporated into the Anglo-Saxon founded masters.

    There can be no compromise with such evil.

  • Jay


    I thought the German army entered Poland to reclaim the Danzig region which had been annexed and had the majority ethnic German speaking populace.

  • Mary

    The excellent Scot John Hilley writes on Blair and Wark.

    Blair’s smooth talk, Wark’s lame talk
    It’s hard to watch BBC presenter Kirsty Wark’s interview with Tony Blair without feeling both staggered by Blair’s smooth, ongoing deceit and appalled by Wark’s tepid efforts to interrogate his lies.

    Blair’s “how many times have we been over this argument” denials, dismissals and evasions should be perfectly familiar to Wark, as they are to the millions who have rejected the claims for invading Iraq and ‘liberal intervention’ in other countries


    I think Wark is appalling in general and in particular on this Bliar rehab stuff.

    In answer to a note saying:

    Dear Kirsty Wark,

    You clearly believe that Britain invades other countries to export democracy and freedom. Thus, please can you explain why Blair and Cameron et al continue to be friends with brutal dictators such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain etc?

    Isn’t Noam Chomsky correct when he says Britain and the US will support the most brutal regimes as long they remain subservient to Western elites?

    Please find the time to reply.

    Tony Shenton.

    She replies:

    Dear Tony Shenton

    Thank you for your email. You are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t know how you can presume to know what I think, I was simply framing a question, Yours Kirsty Wark

    to which he replied:

    As you know, how you frame a debate reveals a lot about your ideological beliefs.


    PS There is another programme on the Iraq war being broadcast by the BBC on Radio 4 on Saturday afternoon entitled The Iraq Dossier.

    The Iraq Dossier
    Duration: 1 hour
    First broadcast:Saturday 02 March 2013 14.30
    The dossier “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction”, lead to the headline “just 45 minutes from attack”, persuaded MPs to vote for an invasion of Iraq, and hardened public opinion against Saddam Hussein. Fall out from accusations by the BBC that the claims had been “sexed up” led to the death of Dr David Kelly and the Hutton Inquiry.

    This drama goes behind the scenes of MI6, the Ministry of Defence and Downing Street to dramatise one of the most controversial episodes in British politics.

    The author, David Morley, has created the script from the mountain of emails, memos, and first hand testimony submitted to the various inquiries into the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as well as from first-hand interviews with Dr Brian Jones, who died in 2012 and was the MoD’s leading expert on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, concerned that exaggeration should not creep into the dossier.

    Other key players include Richard Dearlove, head of MI6; John Scarlett, Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and Tony Blair’s adviser, Alastair Campbell.

    Producer: Richard Clemmow
    A Perfectly Normal production for BBC Radio 4.

  • Mary

    Sorry about the double entry. Don’t know how that happened but probably because the page froze and I refreshed it.

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    The Borse is a much bigger threat to the West than nukes. Really, who in their right mind would use a couple of bombs, when annihilation follows the ID of the ‘signature’? No, the threat to the domination of Petrodollar would reveal the true value of our currency, and that would have much more devastating effect. It’s true Israel feels their geography and animus makes them prime candidates for an attack, and even just two bombs might permanently disable. But the rest of Iran’s antagonists fear the money issue, more.

  • Uzbek in the UK

    Father Ted

    Is not this happen at the same time – Passover massacre?

    And also, is it practical to put the initiative on the table which is only supported by part of the one concerned party. Is not Hamas rejected it in the first place?

  • Mark Golding - Children of Conflict

    It apears to me the age old arms control negotiations have become a mechanism for promoting the arms race rather than controlling it and the 2012 NTP review conference was clearly in a state of confusion such that no decision has been made on a commitment for a nuclear free Middle East.

    No, it will take a clear mind and the skills of an ‘according to Hoyle’ negotiator such as Craig Murray to enact a ‘sine qua non’ agreement between leaders.

    As result of covert nuclear proliferation, new tactical weapons systems, and new strategic doctrines, the danger of nuclear war is increasing.

1 2 3 6

Comments are closed.