I had my last exam today, and I kind of invented a new typology of international organisations,  based on state participation and jurisdiction. It was ok, but now hopefully there will be more time for substantial posting. Unfortunately nothing much like that today. 

You can check out the latest text of the diplomatic offer to Iran from the P5+1, at ISIS as usual. I'm not sure if this one has been released publicly, but ISIS must be pretty well connected to get all this shit before most others. The basic point of the letter is suspend enrichment, which as I've noted oreviously, is not what Iran wants to do. Basically what the letter states, is that once the International community has "confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature" of the enrichment program, then it will offer support to Iran. But confidence is hard to properly establish, especially when you have a US administration that has already made up its mind.

As ACW has noted, it will be interesting to see how long this coalition against Iran will hold together, especially in light of Bush's aggressive rhetoric regarding 'all options on the table'. Of course they're on the table, but he keeps delibrately reminding us of that for a specific reason. However, such aggressive rhetoric has the potential to scare off allies if they think he is actually going to follow through with it. 

We should also note that fnding for RRW has agin been denied by the US congress. However, I will quote the reasons behind this decision, 

"Last year, the Administration proposed the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) as the first of a new generation of nuclear warheads.  The Administration promotes the advantages of a new design offering better surety, better reliability, and lower yield, but RRW was offered in a vacuum and there was no new strategy behind it.  There was no plan for what the weapons were to be used for, how many there were to be, or how they were to be made.  So, Congress refused to fund the RRW.

"This year, the Committee again reiterates that before considering funding for most new programs, substantial changes to the existing nuclear weapons complex, or funding for RRW, the following sequence must be completed:  First, replacement of the Cold War era strategies with a 21st Century nuclear deterrent strategy sharply focused on today’s and tomorrow’s threats that is capable of serving the national security needs of future Administrations and future Congresses without the need for nuclear testing; second, determination of the size and nature of the nuclear stockpile sufficient to serve that strategy; and finally, determination of the size and nature of the nuclear weapons complex needed to support that future stockpile.  Of course, we need to be looking at all three at once, but the decisions have to flow in that order.  With no such plan delivered, the fiscal year 2009 bill again denies all funding for RRW.  There is no sense in expending the taxpayer’s hard earned dollars absent a clear plan for the complex."

So they weren't rejecting it in principle, just rejecting it right now. They want a new nuclear strategy and mission for US weapons post-Cold War to rationalise and justify the program. They certainly havent rejected the idea. So look forward to it continuing to pop up in the future.