It’s both funny and sad — okay, mostly funny — to watch the right-wingers, neocons, and pro-Israel hawks gnashing their teeth and nay-saying about the Iran talks. Fact is, the results of yesterday’s meetings were pretty darned good, for seven hours work: the US and Iran sat down for an extended one-on-one, Iran agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to look at the Qom facility that caused all the hubbub, and Iran also acceded to a plan to ship most of its enriched uranium to Russia and France, where it will be turned into fuel rods for a reactor that is used to medical purposes. (That latter step means that Iran is getting rid of most –estimates are, as much as 75 per cent — of the low-enriched uranium that, according to the hawks, it was storing up to make a bomb.)
Going in, the hawks screeched that talking to Iran is worse than useless. So, now that the talks have actually accomplished something? Umm–they’re still useless, or worse.
The Wall Street Journal, in an hysterical editorial entitled “Springtime for Mullahs,” writes:
“The evidence is overwhelming that the window to stop the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism from acquiring a bomb is closing fast. If we are serious about doing so, the proper model isn’t North Korea, but Libya. The Gadhafi regime agreed to disarm after the fall of Saddam Hussein convinced its leaders that their survival was better assured without nuclear weapons. Mr. Ahmadinejad and Iran’s mullahs will only concede if they see their future the same way.
“This supposed fresh start in Geneva only gives them new legitimacy, and new hope that they can have their bomb and enhanced global standing too.”
Or take the editorial at National Review:
“The big news out of the talks is that Iran agreed to rapid International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of its just-revealed enrichment facility at Qom and, in principle, to ship some of its existing low-enriched uranium to Russia. Although these items will be enough for the press — and for Iran’s international enablers — to play up the positive results of the talks, neither of these moves is earth-shattering. The Iranians are masters of making concessions that they take back or water down. … The game for Iran here is a relatively easy one — string things along so talks continue and stiffer sanctions are forestalled.”