جورج Perkovich »، یک متخصص برجسته در سیاست های هسته ای ، می گویدبا وجود تنفر شدید در جهان به خاطر وقایع اخیر در انتخابات ایران و جو نا ارام سیاسی، ایالات متحده باید آمادگی برای گفتگو با دولت ایران را با در نظر گرفت این مسیله باشد . "سئوال این است که ما تمایل به مذاکره باچنین دولتی را داریم یا نه باید سعی کنیم که ایران به قطعنامه ها تن دهد،" او می گوید. "سوال واقعی این است که آیا این دولت در ایران حاضر به سازش در وضعیت فعلی است یا نه." همچنین می گوید که باراک اوباما رئیس جمهور برای پیشرفت در هدف خود اعلام کرد به دنبال جهان بدون سلاح های هسته ای است ، او باید در مجلس سنا این معاهده منع آزمایش را به تصویت برساند٠او همچنین گفت رهبر ایران مطمعن به نظر نمیرسد و نامه نگاری رهبر ایران با امریکا شاید بازی بیش برای خریدن وقت نیست ولی ما با اروپاییان مخصوصا المان در این دام نخواهیم افتاد و پیشنهادات ایران با اوضاع داخلی اشفته شاید برای بقای انها است .ما دیگر دیپلماسی بدون هدف را دنبال نخواهیم کرد و رهبر این مسیله را شاید خوب نداند که دیگر نمیتواند با چنین وضعی در موضع خود استوار باشد این سرکوب اخیر در ایران بدست حاکمان ان به جهانیان ثابت کرد که دستیابی این رژیم به سلاح اتمی خطر ناک است و ما نخواهیم گذاشت
No Signs of Iranian Flexibility on Nuclear Program
Interviewee:
George Perkovich, Vice President for Studies and Director of the Nonproliferation Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Interviewer:
Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor, CFR.org
September 2, 2009
George Perkovich, a leading expert on nuclear policy, says despite the world's revulsion at the apparently staged elections in Iran, the United States should be prepared to talk to the Iranian government. "The question isn't our willingness to negotiate or to try to find some resolution with this government in Iran," he says. "The real question is whether this government in Iran is at all willing to make compromises on its current posture." Perkovich also says that for President Barack Obama to make progress on his stated goal of seeking a world without nuclear weapons, he should push for Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
President Obama has said he's waiting for a response from Iran to discuss not only its nuclear program but other issues of interest as well. In particular, he wants some response by the time of the UN General Assembly meeting later this month. What should the United States do about Iran?
On the question of if we should be prepared, or even seek to talk or negotiate with this government of Iran, the answer is clearly yes. The question isn't our willingness to negotiate or to try to find some resolution with this government in Iran. The real question is whether this government in Iran is at all willing to make compromises on its current posture and take the steps that are required by the Security Council. If the government in Iran is prepared--and its central figure is Ayatollah [Ali] Khamenei, the supreme leader--to negotiate and make compromises, that would be a big step forward for international security. And by the way, it would be a major relief for the opposition in Iran. Even those in Iran who are most optimistic about the capacity to somehow displace President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and even change the system of having a supreme religious leader, those [people] don't want to have to deal with the nuclear issue. It's a very difficult issue. If somehow this government in Iran could find common ground with the rest of the world, everyone should welcome that.
Have we had any such signals from Iran that you know of?
No. That's why I find it understandable but curious that we're focusing on whether the United States should be prepared to negotiate with the Iranians when the Iranians show no sign that they're going to be genuinely prepared to negotiate. They may show up for talks, but they've shown up for talks in the past. In fact, the Bush administration showed up for talks with the Iranians on the nuclear issue in July 2008. William Burns, the undersecretary of state, was there. We've broken that ice, but the reality is that the Iranians haven't negotiated. The Iranian representative Saeed Jalili gives hour-long diatribes and lectures on theology and other issues, but there's absolutely no give and take, and there hasn't been any since, probably, 2005. The question is whether the Iranians are prepared to actually engage in give and take, and I see no signs of that. .................
Interviewee:
George Perkovich, Vice President for Studies and Director of the Nonproliferation Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Interviewer:
Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor, CFR.org
September 2, 2009
George Perkovich, a leading expert on nuclear policy, says despite the world's revulsion at the apparently staged elections in Iran, the United States should be prepared to talk to the Iranian government. "The question isn't our willingness to negotiate or to try to find some resolution with this government in Iran," he says. "The real question is whether this government in Iran is at all willing to make compromises on its current posture." Perkovich also says that for President Barack Obama to make progress on his stated goal of seeking a world without nuclear weapons, he should push for Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
President Obama has said he's waiting for a response from Iran to discuss not only its nuclear program but other issues of interest as well. In particular, he wants some response by the time of the UN General Assembly meeting later this month. What should the United States do about Iran?
On the question of if we should be prepared, or even seek to talk or negotiate with this government of Iran, the answer is clearly yes. The question isn't our willingness to negotiate or to try to find some resolution with this government in Iran. The real question is whether this government in Iran is at all willing to make compromises on its current posture and take the steps that are required by the Security Council. If the government in Iran is prepared--and its central figure is Ayatollah [Ali] Khamenei, the supreme leader--to negotiate and make compromises, that would be a big step forward for international security. And by the way, it would be a major relief for the opposition in Iran. Even those in Iran who are most optimistic about the capacity to somehow displace President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and even change the system of having a supreme religious leader, those [people] don't want to have to deal with the nuclear issue. It's a very difficult issue. If somehow this government in Iran could find common ground with the rest of the world, everyone should welcome that.
Have we had any such signals from Iran that you know of?
No. That's why I find it understandable but curious that we're focusing on whether the United States should be prepared to negotiate with the Iranians when the Iranians show no sign that they're going to be genuinely prepared to negotiate. They may show up for talks, but they've shown up for talks in the past. In fact, the Bush administration showed up for talks with the Iranians on the nuclear issue in July 2008. William Burns, the undersecretary of state, was there. We've broken that ice, but the reality is that the Iranians haven't negotiated. The Iranian representative Saeed Jalili gives hour-long diatribes and lectures on theology and other issues, but there's absolutely no give and take, and there hasn't been any since, probably, 2005. The question is whether the Iranians are prepared to actually engage in give and take, and I see no signs of that. .................
w.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment