Clinton: Time running out for diplomacy with Iran

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made clear Saturday that time is running out for diplomacy over Iran’s nuclear program and said talks aimed at preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon would resume in mid-April.
With speculation over a possible U.S. or Israel military attack adding urgency to the next round of discussions in Istanbul set for April 13, Clinton said Iran’s “window of opportunity” for a peaceful resolution “will not remain open forever.”

She also expressed doubt about whether Iran has any intention of negotiating a solution that satisfies the U.S., Israel and other countries that believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran contends the program is solely for peaceful energy and research purposes.

“We’re going in with one intention: to resolve the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program,” Clinton told reporters after attending a security conference in Saudi Arabia.

“Our policy is one of prevention, not containment. We are determined to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” America’s top diplomat said.

Things are starting to really heat up.

The only peaceful solution is for Iran to give up anything that is remotely related to nuclear power regardless of its purpose or total annihilation which I guess one could stretch that out to mean a peaceful solution once the almighty US is finished wiping them off the face of the earth.

I don’t see a way out for Iran, best thing they can do for themselves is pack up and move or dig a really deep hole.

Your solution is the genocide of the Iranians? What is left of the Persian Empire? I don’t think the Pope would approve of that. Got a plan B?

I am deeply disappointed with the administration on this one. IMHO, if action involves putting any US troops on the ground, they will ensure a republican victory in November. Were it not for Israel, we would be following a strategy similar to the one with North Korea.

Israel must know some terrible secret about us…nothing else makes any sense.


No, my solution is to let Iran be Iran and let Israel handle them if they feel threatened.

Since when do we solicit the Pope’s approval on matters of national security? He is shepherd of the flock, not commander-in-chief.

I don’t think so. If Iran were to agree to forgo a heavy water reactor, which might be used to produce plutonium, and would open their uranium enrichment facilities to increased international oversight, I think the Iranian nuclear program would be acceptable to the West. However, both those things requires a sacrifice of Iranian control, which they seem reluctant to make.

Depending on the extent of the sacrifice, I don’t blame them. I wouldn’t want to sacrifice our nuclear weapons to appease a forgei…oh wait…

Hi Russia, here is a pretty little red button that does absolutely nothing, and half of our nuclear arsenal will be destroyed, can we be bff now?

We give Israel our best technology of war. Anything they have is because of the US giving it to them.

Let’s let them work this out on their own. They are big boys. They can handle it.

The US doesn’t need this.

i agree with you.

The beauty of this entire conversation is that the majority involved are from the US…the only nation to actually use one of these weapons.

American Exceptionalism at it’s best…I guess Iran cannot have these weapons…if, and I repeat, if, they are actually creating them.

What ever happened to mutually assured destruction?

Again…it’s all about Israel.

Hillary and the administration are wrong on this one.


I’m sorry but not every nation is mature enough to have nuclear capability. The monster was created and we need to keep watch over it.

Mutually assured destruction doesn’t work if your enemy doesn’t care whether or not they live or die. This worked with the Soviet Union because they loved life–they had nice dachas, had access to the finest foods and libations, and plenty of women. They had a hedonistic lifestyle and did not want it to fall from their grasp.

The ayatollahs in Iran can care less if they die in pursuit of their beliefs, which is why MAD won’t work.

Yep. For the Soviet’s problems- they were smart folks and knew how to play the game.

I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but the Iranian leadership exhibits none of the tendencies you describe.

None other than Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey has stated that in his opinion, the Iranian leadership has behaved as a rational actor.

NO NEW nations have business obtaining nuclear weapons. The world needs LESS of these not a proliferation!

So far (before having a nuke). So, you would be completely comfortable with the ayatollahs having a nuclear weapon? You would be happy if the president and secretary of state allowed that to happen, or did not do everything they could to NOT allow that to happen? They won’t, because they know they would be on the wrong side of history when they did.


What would allay the Iranians’ temptation to develop a nuclear weapon (if, and that’s a big if, Iran is indeed working on a nuclear weapon) would be an announcement from Israel that it will begin deactivating its own nuclear arsenal.

Is it definitively established that Israel has nukes?

Even if they do- the dynamic you present isn’t failsafe enough. We cannot ensure with 100% certainty that Iran would stand down given this scenorio.

Israel, for their problems, can be trusted with nuclear capabilities but I do not believe Iran can. Even IF their current government is stable enough, their infrastructure is shaky and the chance of infiltration by an unstable entity couldn’t be absolutely prevented.

I say Israel should handle their own business. Unfortunately, the US will ALWAYS jump into any conflict involving them. Whether it’s a Democrat or GOP in charge. . . . . .

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit