dn67,

it was to call the Iranian’s bluff by offering them nuclear fuel and technology in exchange for very restrictive oversight.

Restrictive oversight? What the flock is that? ‘Splain, Lucy.

If the Iranians said “no”, then they couldn’t argue that they were pursuing nukes for peaceful purposes.

Sorry, but that doesn’t wash. Saying “no” to Kerry’s proposal does not carry with it any restriction regarding what the Iranians could or couldn’t argue in the future.

What stops the Mullahs from simply saying, “Thanks, but no thanks. We’ll manufacture our own fuel for our own peaceful purposes. Have a nice day.”

If they said “yes”, then the international community would get more oversight than it has right now over a program that probably has the capability of producing nukes (thanks, in no small part, to the Pakistanis).

“International Community Oversight” has not stopped the Iranians to this point, didn’t stop the Pakistanis, didn’t stop the Indians, and didn’t stop Libya from forming his program.

This is a weak plan even assuming that the “International Community” has some capability to oversee the Iranians rather than being led around by the nose. And given what we’ve seen so far of the “International Community’s” oversight capabilities and even its willingness to oversee that which it doesn’t seem to want to see over or under, what gives this plan eyes let alone teeth?

And, BTW, what is the International Community (other than a nice euphamism for not the United States)?