Digitalglobe, via Agence France
Press, Getty Images, satellite image
of Iranian nuclear facility of Fordo
The headline this morning read, "U.S. Defines It's Demands For Iran Talks", from David E. Sanger and Steven Erlanger, "The New York Times", April 8, 2012.
The essence of the article: Before we begin "negotiations" with you over your nuclear program give it up or else. The or else being if you don't give it up we'll take it out for you.
Technically, we're not at war with Iran. Yet according to President Obama, this is Iran's "last chance" to "immediately dismantle a nuclear facility deep under a mountain at Fordo, halt production of uranium fuel and all existing stockpiles of that fuel be shipped out of the country".
These are not pre-conditions for "negotiations", they're ultimatums.
From here, negotiations are supposed to be diplomatic sit-downs between adversaries because a stalemate exists between them. Negotiations are not ultimatums demanding unconditional surrender as a pre-condition for talks.
But this is what happens when one side exercises world hegemony and acts with arrogant hubris telling Iran it's our way or the highway.
Is this supposed to intimidate Ayatollah Khamenei and the other clerical hard line rulers in Iran? Will U.S. threats help the internal opponents of the Iranian regime to somehow coalesce and overthrow it?
Or will U.S. intimidation backfire, act to inspire Iranian nationalism, its people choosing to rally around the Iranian nation rather than capitulate to an outside aggressor?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
