Sarkozy's veiled threat against Iran

[sinophile]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3442638,00.html

This guy is about to undo 50 years of French duplicity in foreign policy. Go Sarkozy.

[LMAV]

I like this guy the more I hear from him.

[sinophile]

Ironic for so many reasons, Sarkozy may succeed in truly upstaging America where DeGaulle, Chirac and Mietterrand all failed.

Here he is the only charismatic and outspoken western leader until the US Presidential elections in 2008. France's military and economic strength is largely uncommitted, fresh and well trained.

France may very well tip the balance in favor of the West in one of the present conflicts. Iran, Iraq, Israel? Sarkozy will have to be cautious in choosing his spot and not over-extending.

For the US it could be 1776 revisited as the French bail the Americans out of another mess. If Sarkozy can do that without repeating 1789's revolution he's going to earn a special place in Franco-American history.

[mas-36]

Ironic for so many reasons, Sarkozy may succeed in truly upstaging America where DeGaulle, Chirac and Mietterrand all failed.



Sorry, but I have to disagree about your assertion on deGaulle. CdG exemplified Realpolitik on the world stage. His insistence from the onset that France be treated as a world power and also that the theory of a European Union be pushed by Jean Monnet is most likely what kept France from being treated like the poodle of the US or USSR.

Also, by withdrawing France from the larger part of NATO command allowed the French to become their own nuclear power, and they've been paying for their own defense since the time they did it too. Another thing that comes to mind, right after the French lost Indochina (Vietnam), seems he also mentioned something about it was a bad idea that the US get involved there. Strangely funny, how that scene almost repeated itself at the UN security council on the eve of the Iraq war in 2003, only it was PM de Villepin delivering the message.

There's no doubt in my mind that CdG and his legacy has been underestimated by almost everyone. I'm of the opinion that CdG did more for France than most are willing to admit, and that his idea of developing national policies both foreign and domestic and independent of other world "hyperpowers" (like the French often say p-) ) is was kept France on the map. I think that many of my fellow Americans unfortunately tend to mistake yes-men as "Great leaders", which is entirely wrong. CdG was a REAL world leader. He wasn't called the "Last of the Giants" simply because of his height.


For the US it could be 1776 revisited as the French bail the Americans out of another mess.

From where? Iraq? Don't hold your breath. Apart from a dozen or so advisors (maybe more I don't know) in A-stan, the French have left that scene. I certainly hope the spirit of 1776 comes alive again, but presently we're in a jam through much of our own making, all while bashing our oldest friends for daring to disagree with us.

I'm willing to bet that, while Conservatives think Sarko is a delight for now, I'm sure he'll soon do/say something that will irritate even the hardest Neo-con that France will become America's "oldest enemy" once more. :roll: The real question should be: who is going to undo the duplicity of US foreign policy of the past 4 years? Sadly, the choices so far leave much to be disired for, on both sides of the political spectrum.

That said, I do like Sarko a lot, and I like the fresh and optimistic outlook he brings. This book has only begun.

[Kilgor]

I'm willing to bet that, while Conservatives think Sarko is a delight for now, I'm sure he'll soon do/say something that will irritate even the hardest Neo-con that France will become America's "oldest enemy" once more. :roll:


If he continues to wash away the pro-arab , anti israeli Degaulle legacy then I doubt that will happen.

[mas-36]

If he continues to wash away the pro-arab , anti israeli Degaulle legacy then I doubt that will happen.

So Sarko can become anti-arab and pro-israeli? I doubt that will happen too. He may ceratinly get the pendulum swinging a little bit more, but there's no way he'll let it teeter to the extreme for either side on this issue.

My guess, Sarko will talk big, but will play it safe for his first term. He has more pressing domestic issue at home to deal with than to get involved in an israeli-arab hate fest. He was elected to get the economy and jobs issues fixed, not to decide on Jerusalem's fate.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

From where? Iraq? Don't hold your breath. Apart from a dozen or so advisors (maybe more I don't know) in A-stan, the French have left that scene. I certainly hope the spirit of 1776 comes alive again, but presently we're in a jam through much of our own making, all while bashing our oldest friends for daring to disagree with us.


We all understand and expect disagreement. I think France did a bit more than "disagree" with us.

Still, so far I do like this Sarkozy guy - it will be interesting to see what happens.

[Telmar]

Ironic for so many reasons, Sarkozy may succeed in truly upstaging America where DeGaulle, Chirac and Mietterrand all failed.

...

Mitterand was a socialist but after the meeting between Ronald Reagan and him in Ottawa at a G6 summit, Reagan completely changed stance.

France had succeded in obtaining from a KGB top level (called in code farewell) an enormous amount of data on how the Soviets had organized economic and technological spying on the USA.

Mitterand gave all the information he had to Reagan and the French secret services gave all new info to the USA.

The USA used a very clever response by not expelling the spies, but by giving them fake plans and drowning them in BS info in order to cripple the copying activities of the USSR.

This very little known phase of the final years of the cold war is extremely interesting.

However, Mitterand did oppose the bombing of Libya in 86, and forbid the planes of flying into french airspace. This is often regarded as Mitterand's legacy towards the USA while it was only a detail compared to the strategic info that France provided the USA in that time.

More here on "Farewell"for those interested:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/96unclass/farewell.htm

[LaPalice]

Sarkozy’s position about Iran is not very different of Chirac’s position: no nuclear weapons for Iran, but not a war to prevent them to have it. The French position about Iraq does not change too, even if the French minister of foreign affairs went to Baghdad.
A more important change is the position about Syria. Chirac did not want any discussion with the Syrians. Sarkozy thinks that it would be a good idea to discuss with them. I am not sure that the Americans are very happy that someone suggests a dialog with Syria.

[Telmar]

.......
From where? Iraq? Don't hold your breath. Apart from a dozen or so advisors (maybe more I don't know) in A-stan, the French have left that scene. I certainly hope the spirit of 1776 comes alive again, but presently we're in a jam through much of our own making, all while bashing our oldest friends for daring to disagree with us.

...

There is much to criticize on the engagement of French troops in southern Afghanistan and the departure of the special forces last year, but France still has 1000 soldiers in A-stan in Kabul. And France provides air support in all the country.

2 KC135 for for refueling
2 C-160 transport planes
3 Rafale
3 Mirage 2000

There were (up to the point where the ONLY aicraft carrier had to go to its maintenance in April 2007) 28 bombers and a Hawkeye on that aircraft providing air support.

[Dif]

All in all very balanced position on Iran. Was known before and in line with positions of other partners on the Iran case.

[Dr_ColoSSus]

The man clearly stated the obvious; that a nuclear armed Iran would not be conducive for a lasting peace in the Middle east.

If more world leaders voiced this sentiment, them perhaps (wishful thinking?) Iran's leadership MIGHT reconsider is refusual to negotiate an outcome with the west that would satisfy the west's fears and allow Iran to have nuclear power.

After all, what good is having a shiny new reactor, if all your cities are decorated with bomb craters?

[Nansouty]

After all, what good is having a shiny new reactor, if all your cities are decorated with bomb craters?

The Iranian leadership would see that differently... that would so vindicate Ahmadinejad, and provide a nice opportunity to make people forget his shortcomings (Iran's economical woes are damaging the population's standard of living ) and rally behind the government. That would also be a clear demonstration that Iran needs the bomb, and that the government was right to spend so much on it...



Sarkozy’s position about Iran is not very different of Chirac’s position

But enough to make everyone here take notice... he said the Iranian bomb was "unacceptable", and went on on that bit about avoiding the bombing Iran / Iranian bomb alternative. This is a definite shift IMO.

[budgie]

Chirac seemed dismissive of the Iranian nuclear threat at first but when he realised it was getting more likely he did an about face and stood firmly against it. If Sarkozy is pleasing anybody on the American Right these days it's not with a change of policy, but with tougher, more Bush-like language. France's stance against Iran is the same as it was before the election.

[boy1000]

Mr Sarkozy is something I will call a fresh blow to European politics.

From where I sit this is not so imortant to the relationship between US and France, but more important put allot more pressure on Germany to be more involved in the conflicts against Radicalism around the world.

I am very interested to see what will happening especially in regards to France and the middle east

[Rictor]

So Mr. Sarkozy think that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable? Wonder what his reaction would if, to pick a name at random, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa asserted that France has no legitimate right to posses nuclear weapons and should disarm immediately or face consequences. Sacre bleu, vot an absurdity!

Seems that the theory of political sovereignty doesn't have too many fans nowadays.

[theholeinthedonut]

So Mr. Sarkozy think that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable? Wonder what his reaction would if, to pick a name at random, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa asserted that France has no legitimate right to posses nuclear weapons and should disarm immediately or face consequences. Sacre bleu, vot an absurdity!

Seems that the theory of political sovereignty doesn't have too many fans nowadays.

Completely right you are! Sacré bleu! And let's not forget Poland and Georgia, from my point of view they each should have at least the same WMD capabilities as those of Russia and the US combined!

[LaPalice]

So Mr. Sarkozy think that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable? Wonder what his reaction would if, to pick a name at random, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa asserted that France has no legitimate right to posses nuclear weapons and should disarm immediately or face consequences. Sacre bleu, vot an absurdity!

Seems that the theory of political sovereignty doesn't have too many fans nowadays.

Iran is a signatory of the NPT. Then any other member of this treaty has the right to criticize Iran if it does not respect it.

That said, yes, sovereignity is not very respected nowadays.

[Rictor]

Completely right you are! Sacré bleu! And let's not forget Poland and Georgia, from my point of view they each should have at least the same WMD capabilities as those of Russia and the US combined!

The rights of nations, like the rights of individuals, are inherently and inalienably equal. If they are not, then these rights are non-existant and we should all stop pretending otherwise.

Besides, the entire NPT rests of the belief that existing nuclear powers will move toward eventual disarmament. Since none of them are, and quite a few are moving in the opposite direction, it becomes impossible to justify selective enforcement. Not to mention that India, Pakistan and Israel openly posses nuclear weapons, are not signatories to the NPT, and yet have been rewarded (or at least not punished) for their behaviour.

Phrase it however you wish, but it's an essentially hypocritical position that you hold.

[theholeinthedonut]

The rights of nations, like the rights of individuals, are inherently and inalienably equal. If they are not, then these rights are non-existant and we should all stop pretending otherwise.

Besides, the entire NPT rests of the belief that existing nuclear powers will move toward eventual disarmament. Since none of them are, and quite a few are moving in the opposite direction, it becomes impossible to justify selective enforcement. Not to mention that India, Pakistan and Israel openly posses nuclear weapons, are not signatories to the NPT, and yet have been rewarded (or at least not punished) for their behaviour.

Phrase it however you wish, but it's an essentially hypocritical position that you hold.

Well said!

[sinophile]

The rights of nations, like the rights of individuals, are inherently and inalienably equal. If they are not, then these rights are non-existant and we should all stop pretending otherwise.

Besides, the entire NPT rests of the belief that existing nuclear powers will move toward eventual disarmament. Since none of them are, and quite a few are moving in the opposite direction, it becomes impossible to justify selective enforcement...

I got dumb chills reading this posting.

Any number of nations lack the political stability, ideology and means to manage and control nuclear materials. Pakistan is shining example of a country unable to keep a lid on it. Sweden failed as well.

The rights on nations are not equal. They are directly proportional to the leverage/power they command - and tempered only by the benevolence of their government and populace.

Those who wish to be virtuous in every way necessarily come to grief by those less virtious than themselves. Machiavelli's statement was true then and its every bit as true now.

The NPT is an anachronism.

[theholeinthedonut]

EDIT: Double post.

[theholeinthedonut]

I got dumb chills reading this posting.

Any number of nations lack the political stability, ideology and means to manage and control nuclear materials. Pakistan is shining example of a country unable to keep a lid on it. Sweden failed as well.

The rights on nations are not equal. They are directly proportional to the leverage/power they command - and tempered only by the benevolence of their government and populace.

Those who wish to be virtuous in every way necessarily come to grief by those less virtious than themselves. Machiavelli's statement was true then and its every bit as true now.

The NPT is an anachronism.


You Sire are an oppressive, neo-colonialistic, hypocrite!!!!

[xav]

He really is a chance for France

[Dr_ColoSSus]

So Mr. Sarkozy think that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable? Wonder what his reaction would if, to pick a name at random, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa asserted that France has no legitimate right to posses nuclear weapons and should disarm immediately or face consequences. Sacre bleu, vot an absurdity!

Seems that the theory of political sovereignty doesn't have too many fans nowadays.


France has been a nuclear power for over 50 years. France has never threatened to 'wipe anyone of the map'. Also france is a democracy which does not funnel arms and money to jihadi groups. IMHO france CAN be trusted with nukes. Cant say I feel the same about the current leadership in Iran.

Having said that I believe the world should be trying to limit the spread of nuclear weapons/technology, especially in these days where a terrorist group would happily level downtown LA or London if they were given the means. The last thing the world needs is another nuclear power, least of all a totalitarian, Islamo-fascist one.

Sarkozy is right in what he said...Iran should work with the west to find a mutually acceptable solution to this crisis. If all Iran wants is nuclear energy, then why such a hard on for having total control over the entire enrichment process? Except so that if they want nuclear weapons?

[Telmar]

Sarkozy enjoys a very strong support from the French population.

And is for the moment succesful in bringing France into better relations with the USA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081602571.html



For U.S. Officials, France Is the Place to Be

As Chill Over Iraq War Eases, Secretaries, Generals and Justices Head Across Atlantic


By Molly Moore (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/molly+moore/)
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, August 17, 2007; Page A14


PARIS -- Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Donald+H.+Rumsfeld?tid=informline) is out of the Pentagon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Pentagon?tid=informline), Nicolas Sarkozy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Nicolas+Sarkozy?tid=informline) is in the Elysee presidential palace and -- voila! -- the nearly five-year drought in official Washington visits to France (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/france.html?nav=el) is over.
With relations between Paris (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Paris?tid=informline) and Washington warming rapidly after nasty disagreements over the Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/iraq.html?nav=el) war, the rush is on to make up for lost time in the gilded government salons, air show chalets and scenic ports of the world's premier tourist destination.

......

[SBL]

I got dumb chills reading this posting.

Any number of nations lack the political stability, ideology and means to manage and control nuclear materials. Pakistan is shining example of a country unable to keep a lid on it. Sweden failed as well.

The rights on nations are not equal. They are directly proportional to the leverage/power they command - and tempered only by the benevolence of their government and populace.

Those who wish to be virtuous in every way necessarily come to grief by those less virtious than themselves. Machiavelli's statement was true then and its every bit as true now.

The NPT is an anachronism.


Very sensible in my view. And kudos to Sarkozy.

[Rictor]

The issue is simply not "whether they can be trusted". Who will decide? Shall we take a poll at the UN? Throw a coin? Or, as is being suggested here, let the strongest and most powerful selectively deny others the same rights as they themselves posses?

Let me put it this way: let's say you have a neighbor. he's arrogant, openly rascist, plays loud music at night, doesn't take out his trash and thinks that Freemasons control the world. We can all agree, a jerk. Just because you personally don't "trust him" or like him doesn't mean that he's not entitled to free speech, free assembly, habeas corpus, protection by the police, ownership of legal firearms, religious freedom etc. If he has not actually broken any laws, there is no basis whatsoever to grant him more or less rights and privileges than anyone else. Under the law, your best friend and worst enemy are equal.

If we agree that we live in, or should live in, a society of laws, then whether you personally trust someone or not is a moot point.

[Power_serj]

Is it just me, or do I smell a new French-American military and political alliance?

[Dr_ColoSSus]

The issue is simply not "whether they can be trusted". Who will decide? Shall we take a poll at the UN? Throw a coin? Or, as is being suggested here, let the strongest and most powerful selectively deny others the same rights as they themselves posses?

Let me put it this way: let's say you have a neighbor. he's arrogant, openly rascist, plays loud music at night, doesn't take out his trash and thinks that Freemasons control the world. We can all agree, a jerk. Just because you personally don't "trust him" or like him doesn't mean that he's not entitled to free speech, free assembly, habeas corpus, protection by the police, ownership of legal firearms, religious freedom etc. If he has not actually broken any laws, there is no basis whatsoever to grant him more or less rights and privileges than anyone else. Under the law, your best friend and worst enemy are equal.


That is all well and good, except the Iranian government is not representative of, and does not speak for the bulk of the Iranian people. secondly, Iran does not NEED nuclear weapons (or more explicity to have ability to enrich uranium). The world does not need any more nuclear powers. Least of all Iran. If they do aquire this technology and use it to build weapons, it will great setback to world peace, on the scale of munich in 1938. Anyone who believes Iran can be trusted with this technology is either naive or retarted. Or both.



If he has not actually broken any laws, there is no basis whatsoever to grant him more or less rights and privileges than anyone else. Under the law, your best friend and worst enemy are equal.


Iran is a signatory to the NTP. So yes, they ARE breaking the law. But unfortunately in this day an age the NTP is about as useful as britney wearing panties.

[Kilgor]

The issue is simply not "whether they can be trusted". Who will decide? Shall we take a poll at the UN? Throw a coin? Or, as is being suggested here, let the strongest and most powerful selectively deny others the same rights as they themselves posses?

Let me put it this way: let's say you have a neighbor. he's arrogant, openly rascist, plays loud music at night, doesn't take out his trash and thinks that Freemasons control the world. We can all agree, a jerk. Just because you personally don't "trust him" or like him doesn't mean that he's not entitled to free speech, free assembly, habeas corpus, protection by the police, ownership of legal firearms, religious freedom etc. If he has not actually broken any laws, there is no basis whatsoever to grant him more or less rights and privileges than anyone else. Under the law, your best friend and worst enemy are equal.

.

And if this neighbour has made numerous threats to burn your house down, and is suddenly taking a interest in gasoline production, I wouldn't trust him either.

[Rictor]

Ignoring for a second that no one, not even Ahmadinejad, has ever threatened any sort of military action against the United States or even Israel ("wipe off the map" is a mistranslation), Iran could not and would not launch any sort of nuclear attack against anyone. Bottom line. Let's try to step out of Clancy-world for a second and into the real world, where the survival of the "free world" is not perpetually balancing on a razor's edge. I'm sorry to be the bearer of such bad news, but there is no boogeyman lurking in the shadows, waiting to swallow the good and noble West.

Nations are not in the business of commiting suicide. Individuals, yes, but never nations. (The closest anyone got in modern history is WW2 Germany, and even then all but a handful of hardliners were trying to take the reasonable course of action.) And it's crystal clear to even a five-year old that if Iran were to so much as think about lobbing a few A-bombs Israel's way, their country would be flattened within the hour. Let's say that Iran magically acquired 100 nuclear warheads tomorrow and the means to deliver them. It would change nothing. Not only is Ahmadinejad not in control of these weapons, but in practice no one person is. Sure, Khamenei is officially the guy in charge, but he can't run around the press the actual buttons. The military would control these hypothetical nukes, and I find it inconceivable that so many people would act so irrationally all at the same time. Military men, no matter how indoctrinated you may believe them to be, put on the uniform in order to protect and preserve the nation, not to bring about its fiery annihilation. Just because you happen to disagree with someone's position does not instantly make them an irrational lunatic.

But like I've said before, my opinions, your opinions and George Bush's opinion are all equally irrelevant. Iran either has a right to enrich uranium or they don't. And since several dozen nations seem to consider that they themselves have that right, everyone from Iran to Togo or French Polynesia also does.

[0rphie]

That is all well and good, except the Iranian government is not representative of, and does not speak for the bulk of the Iranian people. secondly, Iran does not NEED nuclear weapons (or more explicity to have ability to enrich uranium). The world does not need any more nuclear powers. Least of all Iran. If they do aquire this technology and use it to build weapons, it will great setback to world peace, on the scale of munich in 1938. Anyone who believes Iran can be trusted with this technology is either naive or retarted. Or both.



Iran is a signatory to the NTP. So yes, they ARE breaking the law. But unfortunately in this day an age the NTP is about as useful as britney wearing panties.
any NTP signatory has a right to enrich uranium. I do not see what laws Iran is breaking. the only Iraninan fault is not being a friend of GWB

[Kilgor]

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/bu/iran/imgc/shihab.jpg

“ISRAEL MUST BE ERADICATED FROM THE ANNALS OF HISTORY”

[sinophile]

...Nations are not in the business of commiting suicide. Individuals, yes, but never nations. (The closest anyone got in modern history is WW2 Germany, and even then all but a handful of hardliners were trying to take the reasonable course of action.) And it's crystal clear to even a five-year old that if Iran were to so much as think about lobbing a few A-bombs Israel's way, their country would be flattened within the hour...

First, at several times since the advent of nukes the world almost inadvertently saw a nuclear exchange. That's just on accident. Several additional times by design. So one should assume the Iranians can avoid errors in command and control where full-blow superpowers have gone to the razor's edge - if you wish to extend to them the "right" to bear nuclear arms.

Next, the US and Russian military doctrines are not religious in nature. Yes, the ranks contain various levels of religious devotees, but they are utterly secular forces. The revolutionary guards are a militarized religious force. This raises questions about the degree to which prophecy, emotionality and religious doctrine would play into command and control decisions. You like to gamble. Good me too, but with money only. (p.s. The IDF's doctrine is essentially secular IMHO).

Finally, and I think this is the most important point... Togo's rights to nuclear materials will be decided by those with the power to do something about it. There are no inherent rights - just those rights the powerful extend to the less powerful, whatever their motivations - benevolent or self-interested.

Delude yourself the world is otherwise. It just makes me want to play poker with you - but for money only. :)

Orphie - that's why the NPT needs to be updated or scrapped.