However, despite Iran's prevarication, there are signs of increasing internal debate over whether it should, eventually, accept some sort of compromise.

Prevarication?! What prevarication? And why is the internal debate said to be occuring "despite" it?

Very strange choice of words for an allegedly factual news report. But not so strange, I suppose, when one considers the misleading character of western reporting overall on this subject, amongst many others.

As for the U.S. being "in decline", I would regard that as a highly conservative description of ongoing developments in its global status and an impending economic catastrophe.

Arvy August 2nd, 2008 12:07 pm, wrote:

". . . considers the misleading character of western reporting overall on this subject, amongst many others."

Welcome to 1984; set your watches back to the Stone Age.

The US in decline? That's the understatement of the century.

"We want and we expect a response this weekend," a US State Department spokesman said. "They were given two weeks. The two weeks is up this weekend."

The U.S. "decline" is simply its coming to terms with the rest of the planet's post-colonial era, by which "others" no longer freely surrender their resources to God's people. I'm not worried about it because having traveled outside of America I do not see anybody whose purpose in life is to screw us, as American pseudo-leadership wants to believe and wants us to believe. Yeah, if we lose the big world competition (held in the midst of plenty for everybody), the Chinese will come and take my refrigerator, and go around wearing my best ties. Hence the above sounds like a self-appointed parent talking to a designated child. Like a would-be master talking to a would-be colony. Once you detox from the American-Israeli propaganda-lie that Iran's ambition is to destroy Israel and to put The West over an oil-barrel, it's impossible to imagine that this kind of paternal "diplomacy" is going to produce anything but escalating conflict. (Iran's president said Israel's fall, if it happens, will be because of its apartheid injustices). See news anchor Brian Williams on "Daily Show" who was just in Teheran's "sanctum" of Iranian security to interview Iran's president---to my amazement, Williams said outright that all of their president's foolish statements are "playing to his base at home" (like "Bring 'em on" Bush), that the source of all this trouble is America's/Israel's OWN mal-informed paranoia. If anybody has a right to be defensive, would it not be the party whose government was toppled by the others (Shah, etc.) and whose natural resources its predatory neighbors are drooling for? How would the U.S. behave if Iranian forces were in Mexico and Canada? Williams' first-hand perceptions are supported by a range of third-party data, including the latest and respected intelligence estimate showing that Iran's claims of peaceful purposes are borne out by the facts and lack of ANY evidence otherwise. (Israel's nuke program started from the same claim, "peaceful purposes," a matter of record.) Iran is ALREADY surrounded by a more than adequate "response" were they to make one nuclear flinch---and they know it. What they want (as Williams reported too) is connection with the world, investment, PARITY with the "grown-ups"---so who is it with fundamental founding philosophies of "us over all others"? For answers see Old Testament and the Smithsonian Institution's motto ("The past is prologue")....

It would be nice to know what this international offer entails. If it is to have enrichment in Iran involving an international consortium it sounds like a winner. Everything would be above board. If the US won't accept a consortium deal the negotions are a sham.

Hi Arvy--I saw the same stuff:

"Prevarication" by Iran--Where? Does the writer even know the meaning of the word? Perhaps equivocate is more what is in mind, but to conflate the fundamental nature of prevericate--to lie--is to propagandize.

Second, how is speaking the truth about the US's very visible decline an "anti-Western diatribe"?

Of course, no where is it mentioned that Iran is every bit within its rights to pursue the nuclear fuel cycle for generating electricity or that the IAEA has repeatedly stated that there's no evidence of Iran pursuing a nuclear bomb.

All one need do is look at the source to know it's just the usual anti-Iranian propaganda.

Yes, one as to very aware of the bias in the U.S. media towards Iran.. The words are
Chosen carefully to give the impression that Iran is the problem.
I read an example of it the other day.. The article used the word deviant in describing
Iran response to this latest offer. As if IRAN is the problem.. When they have every right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under article 4 of the NPT.
All the inspections by the IAEA have no evidence of any weapons program..
The NIE report that came out March stated the same, that is no evidence to support
The idea that Iran is pursuing a weapons program…
Yet Iran is made to be the villain

why am I not reading anywhere, anymore that Iran is within it's rights to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Are we wishing that away?

Cheney's plan for creating a casus belli for war with Iran is similar to that used by the Nazis in Germany for war with Poland. In that case, they took a few prisoners from their jails and dressed them up as Polish soldiers. Cheney's thinking wasn't very original, but its obvious where he gets his ideas.

melmac78 - are we wishing it away that Iran is in its rights to enrich uranium? No, we're just pretending it doesn't exist. Pretend it long enough and no one will remember. Same system being used as saying something over and over and it's believed.

You can bet there's no proof of that meeting in Cheney's office, and anyone attending that says what went down will be ignored - unless the person persists. Then - well, we've seen what happens to those kinds of people.

OK I found it!
thanks ZW

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/5855

if these countries were smart, and far-sighted/visionary.. they would go totally alternative. even nuclear is going to become expensive, as fuel grade uranium is not a cheap component, nor readily accessible. the US is already buying most of its nuclear fuel from russia ( I believe.. or it nor, will be soon).

The countries that bypass fossil fuel and nuclear fuel will be the ones who win in the end. and that end.. is closer than it used to be.

alternative energy CAN be achieved.. via small-local energy production, design changes, conservation etc- but it requires a paradigm shift. It will happen where it can be built from the ground up on a totally clean playing field. Only then will it then diffuse back into the existing structures of society-culture-" civilization".

It seems there are folks here who are as disgusted with Western news reporting as I am. I can't bear to indulge CNN anymore, and I've even lost faith in the BBC.

But for what it's worth, I've recently been turned on to Press TV. It has a great website, ticker with up to date news, documentaries, streams live... well, you get the picture.

If you're looking for news from a source where Israel doesn't "automatically" receive the benefit of the doubt, check it out.

The Ides of August are fast approaching !!!

One of the reasons I feel the attack will take place around this date is that Congress is adjourned.

Thanks Tom, I made it a favorite.

http://www.presstv.ir/

So you seriously believe Iran has no intention of building nuclear weapons? Really?

And you say the nation with the world's most powerful military is in decline?

All right, believe what you will, but a lot of this "deluding yourself" talk in the comments comes across as laden with irony.

Jack37 asks: "How would the U.S. behave if Iranian forces were in Mexico and Canada?"

That's not such a rhetorical question if you're a Canadian. Canadians think about that kind of question a lot. We would be another Iraq and not merely psychologically occupied, as we have been since 9/11. I have nightmares about tiptoeing through unexploded cluster bomblets.

If Iran gave up its nuclear energy program, the Bush Crime Family and its buddies, the Israeli-Zionist thugs, would just find another excuse to attack Iran. They have oil and war profiteering on their fevered brains.

Iran will wait out the U.S. elections. Why be in a hurry when signs point to serious economic problems and a more reasoned presidential candidate. Bush is grasping at straws. Israel will not succeed in involving the U.S. in it's war with Iraq. If Israel bites it off, it better be able to chew it itself. The American People will not support another war.

Just for everyone's information (though many of you may know this) "The Telegraph" is an unapologetic supporter of the Tory Party in the UK. They are a conservative news source and tend to carry that bias just as much as "The Wall Street Journal" or "The Washington Post" does in the USA.

If you want a paper that got it right prior to the Iraq war and maintains a more progressive stance then you need to stick to "The Guardian" in the UK. "The Independent" is not quite as good, but tends to align with the Labour government.

These are my opinions anyway having read all three of these papers widely over the last 10 years.

g50 is the number 50 your IQ?

So what if Iran is building nuclear weapons? What gives the US the right to have nuclear weapons and the rest of the world not?

The US might still have the world's most powerful military but it's definitely, certainly, positively in decline.

It can't even afford body armors for its soldiers to begin with, or win a war with mere 3rd world nations, Iraq and Afghanistan.

"TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran's ambassador to IAEA Friday said the measures adopted by the US envoy at the Governing Board with regard to the nuclear deal with India are, in fact, planned steps to create precedence and pave the way for Israel to continue its clandestine weapons program without undergoing UN monitoring."

- FARSNEWS
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8705121192

The Oily Cheney Cabal are reaping unheard of profits while we the people and our hungry children are watching the crime. Buddy, can you spare a dime?

g50 you are the one that is deluding yourself. BTW you are in the wrong forum, why don't you go to "WorldnetDaily" or "NewsMax" where you would be more at home?

Previous commenters have already responded appropriately to the fatuousness of the knee-jerk exceptionalist and chauvinistic view that Iran is cruisin' for a bruisin' by (possibly) daring to achieve nuclear weapons parity with hostile and belligerent nations near and far.

It's another manifestation of Civil War Land in Bad Decline.

"We want and we expect a response this weekend," a US State Department spokesman said.

Hey USA, you can't always get what you want. But if you try sometime you just might find you get what you need.

Drop one firecracker on Iran and Persian Gulf oil tanker traffic is going to grind to a halt. And NOBODY will feel that jolt like the USA.

Why no discussion of Iran's rights to civil nuclear power or self defense in response to Israel's secret nuclear arsenal? Or some coverage of the alternative plans to deal with Iran?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/americans-dont-know-there_b_111199.html

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21112

George is running out of time and patience to prove his manhood. If I was Iran, I would be concerned as to what our madman might do.

forextrader August 2nd, 2008 3:55 pm

" BTW you are in the wrong forum, why don't you go to "WorldnetDaily" or "NewsMax" where you would be more at home?"

Forextrader, who exactly is welcome to participate in this forum. I thought the idea of forums was for people to discuss issues--not to prove one's liberal bona fides.

www.StudentsForTheEarth.org

g50 August 2nd, 2008 1:44 pm

"So you seriously believe Iran has no intention of building nuclear weapons? Really?"

Not in the immediate future, but they might at some point. Of course, as the French pointed out, they would be unable to use them and their only value would be in preventing an invasion.

Such the is lunacy of current US foreign policy where the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike promotes nuclear arming of sovereign nations for self defence.

This is a progressive-oriented website designed to share and debate opinions, and presumably learn and deepen our thinking thereby.
Few of us would want it domintated by right wing opinion (because too much right wing opinion is nothing but dictated authoritarianism.)

Okay.

But neither should we want Common Dreams to be a site for exclusively progressive opinions, with no tolerance at all for opposite political views
In many cases, the issues we discuss here are either too complex to be analyzed via basic/standard Left perspective alone, or, there is no agreed upon basic/standard Left perspective to begin with, even among us 'regulars.'

Angrily shouting off this site civilly comported opinion posters whose opinions we don't agree with, like Tetti_Tatti has done above, smacks of a personal-level fascism more akin to a rightwing personality than a true progressive. Unless the occasional rightwing visitor is disgustingly vulgar and/or violently hateful, telling them to go elsewhere only marks us in their minds - correctly so - as leftwing group think goons. And this in turn only further divides a world we progressives are supposed to be trying to heal through reason and tolerance.

If need be, roasting aggressive rightwingers with counter facts and opinions is fine. Civilly calling into question their political intelligence and their psychologically-deformed love of authority is also fine --even arguably a duty. But instantly barking at them that there is no room for their opinions on Common Dreams, marks us as hypocrites and fascists -- in a word, one dimensional idiots not too different than they are.

Arvy, I believe it was George Bernard Shaw who said that the US and Britain were "two countries divided by a common language".

For the British, the verb "to prevaricate" can mean "to lie", but may also mean "to procrastinate". This surely is the sense intended in this article from a British source.

fresh1 August 2nd, 2008 6:28 pm -- 'For the British, the verb "to prevaricate" can mean "to lie", but may also mean "to procrastinate". This surely is the sense intended in this article from a British source.'

I don't doubt your suggestion that the British (apparently including Tony Blair) may sometimes use the terms interchangeably, If so, however, it's due to erroneous linguistic confusion and not because of any legitimate equivalence. The two words have very different etymological roots.

In any case, this "news" article is quite misleading for the majority of us who rely upon the dictionary (either Oxford or Webster) for our definitions.

Besides, I fail to see where procrastination would accurately fit the circumstances either. The Iranians are merely rejecting an artificially imposed external "deadline" for abandonning their pursuit of nuclear developments that are, so far as we know, fully in accord with their treaty obligations -- unlike the U.S. and Israel.

Just because you are all in agreement about your delusion does not make it true - see if the US just falls apart. Pretty sure it won't.

Anything we do to Iran will only stiffen their resolve - but what they can do to us and the world - close the Strait of Hormuz with mines, sunken ships, and silkworm missiles - and overwhelm our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan - will reduce us to jello. Then what? Nuking them will not prevent or heal the damage they can inflict.

But don't think that that reality will phase the dunce we have in the Whitehouse, or the jelly fish we have in the Congress.

And don't bet on Iran's leaders to have the good sense to back down from the threats of the certifiable nut-case "W" Bush.

I'm betting on our military to prevent the nut-case from carrying out his insane plans. He does not yet have the grip on our military commanders that the other nut-case Adolph Hitler had in 1939.

g50 it takes some time for an empire to fall apart completely, signs of its decline are all around, however, make sure you're paying attention. China owns our debt, for instance. That means they actually own the US. That's a clear sign of decline.

Zounds I never asked g50 to go away, you must be mistaking me with someone else. And I can't understand why it's ok to question and disparage Bush's intelligence here but not his supporters'.

Barack (Yes We Can) Obama said last week that if sanctions fail to stop Iran's enriching of uranium then military action against Iran would be legitimate.
Iran offered, during negotiations with the EU in 2005, to stop enriching uranium in exchange for a security guarantee (guess whom that was directed towards). In all my reading of the US and UK mainstream press, the only time I found mentioned that Iran is seeking a security is a Financial Times article about two and a half months ago.
As I have written elsewhere, I highly doubt any sane imperial ruler (US president or vice president) would bomb Iran because, as ElBaradei has said, it would turn the Middle East into a fireball. The consequences would be so dire (unimaginably high oil prices, Iranian retaliation outright and through proxies, the sparking of of a nuclear arms race, ect.) that it would take somebody with more than a few screws lose to embark on that fiery journey. Moreover, its not even certain that a US strike, and certainly not an Israeli one, can do more than only delay the Iranian nuclear programme. That being said, Bush and Cheney are still in power, so who knows?

To the person mentioning PressTV.

Your good Government has a resolution (HR 1308) wherein Press TV will be labled (along with others) as terrorist web sites.

You WILL be monitored if you read such a site and or if you link to articles on it. Under the "Patriot Act" the "Military Commissions Act" and the "Homegrown Terrorist Act" in so reading said site you risk giving up all of your rights as a citizen of the United States.

Trying to inform oneself of the truth in the new Amerikka is deemed a crime. You WILL read only what the Government wishes you to read at the risk of arrest.

This is to ensure that your rights to freedom of speech and your other constitutional rights protected because those Islamofascists all hate your freedoms and liberties.

China is just as much indebted to the value in dollars of that debt. Plus, the economy is backed up by the military. So I don't really see anywhere for it to go to.

In 1945 the US GDP was 50 percent of the worlds. Today it at 22 percent and dropping. In 1970 the US was the largest creditor nation in the world. Today it is the largest debtor nation.

The United States needs countries like Russia, the Arab States and China to lend it money.

That hardly suggests a superpower.

It most definitely a country in decline.

The British Empire once ruled the seas, and a qaurter of the Globe. At its very height it had already begun to collapse as an empire. South Africa was added in 1901. After 1918 a number of other ex German Colonies were added along with areas once held by the Ottomans.

Some 30 years later it was all gone and The empire was broke.

Today India has a larger navy.

PK

Arvy, I agree its confusing for Americans such as ourselves to read this, but don't blame it on the Brits. The Latin derivation of "prevaricate" means to wander from the path. Where the "path" is a goal or direction, then wandering means dithering or procrastinating; where the "path" is a truth, then wandering means lying.

Take it easy on g50 "Pretty sure it won't." This was the collective Statement of Faith of the citizens of the Persian , Assyrian , Greek ,Roman , Frankish , Ottoman , French , British , Austro-Hungarian , Belgian , Spanish , Portuguese , Dutch , German Japanese... (did I forget any)empires that fell apart.

Strictly-continental USA may not fall apart but to think that the US Empire will "beat the odds" where others failed , is a tad self-delusional . "g50" probably has an IQ higher than his name but he needs to read " The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" and "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"and the biographies of Churchill,Stalin,Mussolini...

Then we have this warmongering bastard Kenneth Timmerman who in 2006 wrote "Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown in Iran" writing yet more propaganda, fueling the flames of war with Iran.

U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S.

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_plan/2008/07/29/117217.html

Then read this on Timmerman:

More surprising, perhaps - and not mentioned in any official bio - is Timmerman's presence on the Advisory Board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) - an honor he currently shares with Rep. Eric Cantor, Michael Ledeen, Jack Kemp and Richard Perle. Past Board members include Vice President Dick Cheney, US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and Undersecretary of Defence for policy Douglas Feith. A heady and powerful grouping.

Exclusive: Neocon Expert Caught Out Over Iran Warmongering
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2006/03/exclusive-neocon-expert-caught-out.html

The neocons want more war and at any cost. The American people, who have no say in the matter can only sit back and watch as this horror show of Middle East hegemony unfolds.

The USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, Iran, and many other nations negotiated and agreed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968.

Article IV of the treaty states that "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty."

If the USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China now dislike Article IV of the treaty, then these nations should formally withdraw themselves from the treaty. Why should Iran be punished economically and threatened with war, even nuclear war, because these nations now dislike what they agreed to?

In law, treaties are contracts. Imagine you signed a contract selling your house, got the money for the house, and now want to keep the money and the house. So, you threaten to bomb the new owners if they do not give you back the house. What would all reasonable people, the media and the courts do in such a case? Obviously, we should not be backing nations who want to use economic sanctions and war to undo the treaties they agreed to.

Ah? "Just because you are all in agreement about your delusion does not make it true - see if the US just falls apart. Pretty sure it won't." They said that about the Soviet Union, the British Empire where the sun never set, the Spanish Empire, the Japanese Empire.... Who's next?

Hey Joneden don't even go there! G50 was calling people delusional and all that crap and was not discussing the issue. So go fuck outta here with your self righteous holier than thou attitude!

Hey America, don't fuck with Iran! You will get what you deserve if you do!

Ein volk, ein vaterland, ein fuehrer! Seig Heil!

How history repeats itself.

"As long as we have washington, london, and that "shitty little country" israel, there never will be parity. The zionist are hell bent on ruling the world and they don't give a damn how many of OUR young people need to die to get it. Below is yet another example of these filthy vile people."

But the people in your example are all Christians!!!

GwNorth, please don't go pointing out the facts about the myth of American superiority. You might upset some people!

Problem is that America's back might well be broken but, like a stricken rattler, it can still inflict a bite. Like Israel, it will use nukes as a last resort to try to prevent its empire crumbling.

That is the danger for the real world, the one that exists outside America's borders.

www.dangerouscreation.com

The prayers of fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Moslems, and fundamentalist Jews were answered the day George W. Bush was born.They all believe they are the anointed ones who will survive the "End Times", and the Texas Simpleton is doing his best to make "On the Beach" a reality.