Yes indeed. Don't want to offend you, but you have to follow the facts a little bit closer.
You are not offending me at all. I am following this very closely but still fail to see that the US is in direct talks with Iran about the nuclear issue. US never held direct talks with iranian officials on this particluar issue as you claimed.
I can't believe that in two years no american has ever talked to any iranian about the nuclear issue. But as I said they have not much to tell to each other on that topic in particular unlike, as you said, on Iraq and Afghqnistan issues.
. Hence the little exchange.
But if Iran has something new to say, I'm sure the US will be all ears.
It's obvious that there is no war in preparation against Iran, so why talking as if it was the case?
Maybe obvious to you but not to me as long as Bush is still president.
So when Bush won't be president, or to be more exact when a democrat will be president, the situation will change? No, it won't change. Not in this case.
IMO the situation has evolved positively from one year ago.
One excellent developement was the agreement with Russia to enforece a third round of sanctions. Because as long as the Securoty Council will be able to agree on such measures to pressure Iran, war in unlikely. Wra will be much more likely if Russia and China didn't care at all and let Iran do what they want or even help them.
You mean first apply the sanction to weaken a country and then attack? Isn't this what the west did to Iraq?
No the West didn't do that in Iraq. The West didn't plan 12 years of sanction in 1991 to attack by 2003. That doesn't make sens.
Also, some coutries behind the sanctions like France were against the war, remember.
If sanction has to apply in prevision of an attack, then we do a blockade and attack within a year. That's a different thing.
My point was that sanctions on Iran are a better solution than war. Without sanctions Iran will move faster to the point where war against them become unavoidable.
This last event is sure to create a change in opinions in Iran.
Sure it will! But it will change public perception in a negative way towards the US and the west. If the intention of these sanctions is to inflict economic hardship on ordinary iranians and create enough momentum to stop the government from acquiring the bomb I could have kind of seen the rational. But if infact the ultimate intention is to "always interfer in their affairs as long as 30% of our energy sources come from them" then what incentive is there for future moderate governments in Iran to form allainces with the US unless ofcourse they are a puppet/corrupted governments of saudi arabia, egypt and others? Personally, I think that's unlikely as I see the paradigm has shifted and the US knows that this model no longer works.
Stopping them from aquiring the bomb is closely linked to them having "30% of our energy sources" and that it's an islamic dictature too.
I think we won't allow any country, even non islamic and non oil exporter to aquire nukes, but in the case of Iran, having huge reserve of oil, being located on the Persic Gulf and being an Islamic dictature compound our reasons to interfer.
Will sanctions on Iran deteriorate our image they have of us? Certainly. But not as bad as a war. Worse than letting them build the nukes, of course, but that's not an option.
