PTSD

War and lies

The Guardian reports that "we" might be going to war with Iran. But, reading through the article, it appears that
a) The Brits have denied this (but it was the foreign secretary. Is that "official" enough?)
b) The Americans have denied this too (phew. And, it was Bush and C. Rice. Can't go wrong there, eh?)
c) But, wait. John Bolton, the US Ambassador to the UN, said, in an interview with the BBC, that Iran has spent 18 years making these nuclear weapons and has also lied about this (Gosh. who'd have thought? No state ever lies about such things. Not finding WMDs in Iraq was an error. A one-off occurrence. Not a lie)

Bolton thinks Iran is developing nuclear weapons to:

1. intimidate the rest of the Middle East (somehow I reckon others are doing a better job of that), and

2. possibly supply them to terrorists

Iran says the weapons are intended for civilian use (thus not for terrorists). Also, it's not actually developed a nuclear weapon yet.

Talks are being planned on preventing Iran from "having access to the nuclear fuel cycle".

So, after reading these two articles, we can say:

1. Iran wants to try make nuclear weapons
2. US/Some European countries/Russia don't want it to
3. US wants to refer Iran to the UN security council
4. Russia's not really on board with no. 3
5. US (in the form of Rice) is saying Iran needs to "negotiate in good faith" but (in the form of Bolton) is saying Iran "have engaged in concealment and deception and they've engaged in threats before"

So, what's the US about? You have the Sect of State telling Iran to negotiate and the Ambassador to the UN saying they're a bunch of liars. Not exactly about to inspire an already reluctant Iran to negotiate, I'd have thought.

posted by Priya @ 12:27 PM