Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?

henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry Spencer) writes:

In article <87hctc7vcu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Paul Repacholi <prep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...It might involve annoying compromises, e.g. if
Iran renounces WMDs with suitable provisions for verification by
neutral inspection,

But they HAVE done that, several times. All 3 of the top Aitolahs have
declared nuke and apostacy against the Koran ond Islam, and for a
Fatwa on anyone who makes them.

Have they declared a Fatwa on the current leaders of Pakistan? If not,
then there seems to be some fine print in that declaration which you
haven't mentioned.

True, plus the small matter of Farsi.

While they may have formally renounced nuclear weapons, don't forget the
"verification by neutral inspection" part of what I said.

I might add the the US is in blatent breach of the NPT to add to the
outrage felt by many.

The NPT give Iran the UNAILAINABLE right to nuke power and research
and production for peacfull use, and so far that is all they have done.

In which case, clearly they should have no fundamental objection to having
that verified by inspection. Yes, it's humiliating... but as per that
Hammarskjold quote, if Iran wants a deal, Iran has to be prepared to give
something up.

The IAEA report is due for release on Monday I believe. SC members probably
have it already.
.