Tehran’s and Washington’s interests aren’t mutually exclusive

The Obama administration today announced that it would drop a key precondition for negotiations with Iran — a precondition that the Bush administration had insisted on maintaining, says the NYT.

The theory is that by allowing Tehran to continue enriching uranium for an as-yet unspecified length of time during talks, the country will have an incentive to negotiate. “We are going to start with some interim steps,” said an unnamed European official, “to build a little trust.”

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200804/r240208_972753.jpg

But Obama’s concession doesn’t fundamentally change the cost-benefit analysis for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. Certainly, from his perspective, keeping the enrichment facilities up and running as long as possible is in Iran’s interest. But if the outcome is still going to be that Tehran gives up its nuclear programs, you can bet that Ahmedinejad will do everything he can to sabotage the process.

What we need is a solution that’s mutually agreeable. Iran’s goal is to keep its nuclear facilities. Westerners don’t want Tehran to build a bomb. These aren’t mutually exclusive objectives. Yes, it’s difficult to implement effective oversight, and it’s not that far a jump from civilian nuclear energy to something more dangerous. But the hardest part is coming to a satisfactory agreement in the first place. Everything after should be a piece of cake by comparison.

A middle-ground solution would be to do what the U.S. recently did with the United Arab Emirates: sign a cooperative nuclear treaty that would see American technology exported to the Middle East. Done this way, Ahmedinejad gets to keep his nuclear energy program, and the U.S. gets to keep track of every piece of equipment that goes over there. Periodic, perhaps random maintenance checks, would also give Obama an opportunity to oversee what’s happening.

The danger that Ahmedinejad might co-opt even this program into producing enriched uranium is not nonexistent. But risk management, while more difficult, is also more realistic than the inflexibility of risk avoidance.

No joy at THIS Fiesta

The lastest from Grist:

Source: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/07/23/british-motor-show-ford-fiesta-econetic-63-5-mpg-us/

The Ford Fiesta ECOnetic, a small, sporty five-seater that gets an impressive 65 miles per gallon, will the hit the road in November — but only in Europe. “We just don’t think North and South America would buy that many diesel cars,” says Ford America President Mark Fields.

That just seems silly to me. At a time when America is beginning to sort out which methods work best for fighting climate change, Ford is actually removing an option from the table? Wouldn’t unveiling a small, fuel-efficient alternative to the huge SUV actually help to change Ford’s image, thereby boosting sales in the end? Given how much the manufacturer’s market-share has slipped in recent years, it really has little to lose by introducing the Fiesta in the U.S. Sure, the high cost of diesel might turn some away ($4.12/gal as of Sept. 1, says the DOE) — but then they’ll remember that for 63.5 mpg and an average 13-15 gallon tank, they could drive up to 950 miles on a single fill. I don’t know about you, but my family currently racks up about 400 miles a week and spends around $50 at the pump. Filling up the Fiesta would be just $10 more expensive, and we’d be able to go a full week-and-a-half longer between trips to the gas station. Ford’s latest move is yet another example of a short-sighted American corporation letting its country down.