• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

U.S. weighs joining Europe on Iran deal


Benevolent Dictator
DP Veteran
May 19, 2004
Reaction score
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Source: Seattle Pi

WASHINGTON -- In a potential strategy shift, the Bush administration is considering joining Europe in offering Iran economic incentives in exchange for abandoning its nuclear fuel program, the White House said Monday.
In the past, the administration had opposed any rewards for Tehran's cooperation. But President Bush is rethinking the issue after his trip last week to Europe, suggested White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

European leaders urged Bush to join them in offering economic incentives - including possible eventual membership for Iran in the World Trade Organization - on the grounds that united front would be more effective than a continuing U.S.-Europe split over how to persuade Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions.

"There was a lot of discussion about the way forward. The president is thinking through some of the ideas that were discussed. We want to look at how we can be the most helpful in moving the process forward," McClellan said.
I think that we would have learned something from the "diplomatic efforts" of 1994 with North Korea.
Or what about the effects of unfreezing Iran's US assets (with incentives) to get the hosteges back in 1980.

We got the hostages back (thank goodness), but once Iran found that they could get money - it has gotten much worse.

Paying them again will solve nothing.
I think the diplomatic efforts with North Korea in 1994 were considered a good way to go by the Clinton Administration but choosing President Carter as the negotiator was a very poor move. He gave and gave in the face of the history of North Korea and how they treat agreements. He stepped outside his mandate from the Clinton Administration and that was detrimental and a weak agreement was the outcome. The Clinton Administration should have monitored his trip better and pulled him when he wouldn't toe the line; assuming there was a line to toe and I would like to believe there was.

Jimmy Carter also failed in his responsibility for election monitoring in Venezuela. Evidence has come to light that the Socialist Government in that country broke the very laws they had put in place to guarantee free and fair elections. If you read the actual reports of the former President's activities in that country during the elections, derelection of duty comes to mind.

The Bush Administration's insistence that North Korea resume the Six Way Talks is the right direction to go. That is why I think the Administration is willing to join the other governments to bring Iran to heel. If we participate then we see what is being decided first hand. I appreciate the Bush Administration being willing to change a stance because of talks between President Bush and other leaders. It shows he is willing even when they may not have been in the past on other issues and shows we can work with our friends; even the sleazy money grubbing French. He sets a good example too :duel ~~~
Top Bottom