The EU shows Iran it means business!

[whottt]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-09/23/content_3530090.htm


Iran claims victory in nuclear debate

www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-23 06:50:33



TEHRAN, Sept. 22 (Xinhuanet) By Zhang Shengping, Chen Wendi -- Iran claimed victory Thursday in a diplomatic war with the European Union (EU) and the United Statesat the UN nuclear watchdog over its controversial nuclear program. The EU trio of Britain, France and Germany involving in nuclear talks with Iran dropped a demand on Wednesday night from their draft resolution that would force the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors to immediately report Iran's case to the UN Security Council for "failures and breaches of its obligations to comply" with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The original draft was circulated to 35 members of the IAEA Board of Governors on Tuesday due to Iran's refusal to resumesuspension of its uranium conversion activities by Monday deadline when the IAEA board started a meeting in Vienna.

But the EU's effort backed by the United States to refer Iran'snuclear case to the Security Council for possible sanctions metopposition from Russia, China, India and other developing countries on the IAEA board, arguing that Iran's case should besolved within the framework of the IAEA.

Javad Vaeidi, senior Iranian delegate to the IAEA, owed the EU's backdown to broad opposition in the IAEA Board of Governors, particularly that of the two permanent, veto-wielding members ofthe Security Council, Russia and China, and Iran's threat to withdraw from the NPT if it is referred to the Security Council."The Europeans were not confident about the outcome of thisissue (referral)," Vaeidi said.

Vaeidi also voiced Iran's readiness to frustrate the EU'srevised draft that obliges the IAEA board to refer Iran's case promptly and automatically to the Security Council without discussion if Tehran fails to meet a new deadline to suspend uranium conversion activities.

"Iran will never accept a deadline or trigger mechanism. Inthat case, Tehran will show its reaction...Iran will also endeavor to prevent materialization of such attempts," Vaeidi said. Iran's confidence was bolstered by Russia's rejection of the EU's new draft resolution, with a top Russian diplomat to the UNnuclear watchdog saying Russia refused to allow Iran's case to be referred to the Security Council at all.

Convinced of getting the upper hand, Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA Mohammad-Mehdi Akhoundzadeh invited the agency's chief Mohamed ElBaradei to visit Tehran to discussout standing nuclear issues.

"The visit would be an opportunity to discuss some remaining topics and scope of Iran's cooperation with the UN Agency on national nuclear program," Akhoundzadeh was quoted as saying bythe official IRNA news agency.

The official added that members of the IAEA Board of Governors were considering the nuclear initiative presented by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the 60th UN General Assembly lastweek, including involving foreign companies in its uranium enrichment program.

Under the Paris deal, Iran suspended all enrichment-related activities in November 2004 while talks with the EU trio lasts.But the conservative president Ahmadinejad, who took power inearly August, adopted a tough stance on nuclear issue by rejecting the EU proposal to give up nuclear fuel activities in return for economic and technical incentives and restarting uranium conversion work, a precursor to enrichment.

Iran, which insists that it will never give up legal rights to produce nuclear fuel for fully peaceful purposes, was undergrowing pressure to resume suspension of nuclear fuel work and return to negotiation with the EU trio.

The United States and the EU suspect Iran of developing nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear program, a charge rejected by Tehran. Enditem

[whottt]

Shit...and to think we could have tried this approach with Iraq...for another 15 years.


Yep...Liberals=Getting shit done in the Middle East for the last 100 years.

Why make the world better when you can...keep it the same and let it get worse with ambivalence and cowardice?




And I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this is another clear example of how much respect the UN gets in the world.

[whottt]

http://almashriq.hiof.no/general/900/910/912/maps/middle.east.gif


I am thinking a nice sparkling new Democracy would look pretty sweet right there between Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan.

[FromWayDowntown]

War with Iran will be a ghastly proposition. I'd think that if we're hellbent on engaging the Iranians in a war, we'd be best served to get things wrapped up on either side first.

Even then, war with Iran could come very, very close to World War III.

[whottt]

War with Iran will be a ghastly proposition. I'd think that if we're hellbent on engaging the Iranians in a war, we'd be best served to get things wrapped up on either side first.

Even then, war with Iran could come very, very close to World War III.


Take a look at that map...then think about where the US forces are...then realize that Iran is probably the least popular country in the Middle East among it's Muslim brothers...not to mention Israel. Iran is fucked...on top of that the Iranian Government is doing a good job to hold on to it's own power.

And you know we are in the process of closing most of our military bases in Europe...

Iran doesn't even have an Infrastrcuture as good as Iraq...where exactly will the help come from? Most of their Free Radiacals are already in Iraq...


China and Russia...and I am not sold on China and Russia being that tied into defending Iran...


Anyway...Iran has to, and will, fall from within...but we are in position to give them a little help.

[Vashner]

China is NOT a developing country... Stupid idots out there in the Europe liberal media.. China has 120+ cities with a million plus population.. that's like almost 10 major cities for each 1 of our US major cities... and they are all buying 100's of thousands of new cars for each of those cities..

They are 4000 years old NOT DEVELOPING!!!!

[whottt]

China is NOT a developing country... Stupid idots out there in the Europe liberal media.. China has 120+ cities with a million plus population.. that's like almost 10 major cities for each 1 of our US major cities... and they are all buying 100's of thousands of new cars for each of those cities..

They are 4000 years old NOT DEVELOPING!!!!


Um...Your heart is in the right place most of the time...but you do realize this is a chinese article from a chinese newspaper right?

[FromWayDowntown]

If Iran has nuclear capability -- even theater-based nuclear capabilities -- the threat to the entire world is clear. If, as you posit, Iran truly has no friends in the world, they have absolutely no incentive to do anything other than unleash everything they have in the event of a first strike by the West. So, basically, you undertake a first strike against Iran, you are essentially assuring the world that a nuclear conflict, whether miminal or larger, will ensue.

Frankly, I would think that nuclear conflict with Iran would be a best case scenario in the event of a first strike of our own. Somehow, I can't get really jazzed about the idea of a nuclear war of any magnitude. Call me a chickenshit or whatever other perjorative term you wish -- I hardly think it irrational or unwise to favor efforts that will avoid nuclear conflict. Maybe I'm alone in that and if so, so be it.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't think the sentence in the story is intended to imply that China is a developing country. It basically reads that there are 3 main IAEA players who oppose taking Iran to the security council, as well as other developing countries who happen to be members of IAEA.

I don't see how anyone can realistically call China a developing country, either.

[whottt]

If Iran has nuclear capability -- even theater-based nuclear capabilities -- the threat to the entire world is clear. If, as you posit, Iran truly has no friends in the world, they have absolutely no incentive to do anything other than unleash everything they have in the event of a first strike by the West. So, basically, you undertake a first strike against Iran, you are essentially assuring the world that a nuclear conflict, whether miminal or larger, will ensue.

Frankly, I would think that nuclear conflict with Iran would be a best case scenario in the event of a first strike of our own. Somehow, I can't get really jazzed about the idea of a nuclear war of any magnitude. Call me a chickenshit or whatever other perjorative term you wish -- I hardly think it irrational or unwise to favor efforts that will avoid nuclear conflict. Maybe I'm alone in that and if so, so be it.

And what makes you think leaving Iran alone is going to make them less of a threat?

Let me guess...the Post WWI history of the Mid-East and Al-Qaeda's history in Afghanistan?

Oh wait...maybe if we befriend them it won't happen...I mean it's worked in Chechnya, Euopre and Parts of China right? It worked for us in helping them beat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan right? It worked for us when we kept the Soviet Union from taking over Europe and the Mid-East right?

Where exactly would you like us to run to, to bury our heads in the sand I mean? Near as I can tell there is no place else to go.

You make the assumption that they want peace as much as you do...That'd be an incorrect assumption on your part.

[FromWayDowntown]

And what makes you think leaving Iran alone is going to make them less of a threat?

Let me guess...the Post WWI history of the Mid-East and Al-Qaeda's history in Afghanistan?

Oh wait...maybe if we befriend them it won't happen...I mean it's worked in Chechnya, Euopre and Parts of China right? It worked for us in helping them beat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan right? It worked for us when we kept the Soviet Union from taking over Europe and the Mid-East right?

Where exactly would you like us to run to, to bury our heads in the sand I mean? Near as I can tell there is no place else to go.

You make the assumption that they want peace as much as you do...That'd be an incorrect assumption on your part.

You're right -- let's nuke them tonight. Unleash the entire stockpile and kiss all of our concerns about Rita goodbye. Who cares about hurricanes when you can have a nice nuclear war!!!!!

:rolleyes

[whottt]

Are you here to mock? Or to offer a better solution? See...that looks like a bail out on your part...Give me a solution.

Just remember...they hated us when Carter and Clinton were President as well.

Iran supports terrorist groups...terrorists + the bomb = a very bad thing for us, and for other countries as well...Not just America.

[FromWayDowntown]

I mocked your last post because I find your position frightening.

A first strike assures nuclear conflict. No first strike leaves nuclear conflict a possibility, but by no means assures that it will happen. To me, that math is fairly simple and, for now at least, suggests that a first strike against Iran is unwise for the entire world. Just me.

[whottt]

I mocked your last post because I find your position frightening.

A first strike assures nuclear conflict. No first strike leaves nuclear conflict a possibility, but by no means assures that it will happen. To me, that math is fairly simple and, for now at least, suggests that a first strike against Iran is unwise for the entire world. Just me.


So, better to wait until they actually have nukes...gotcha.

[boutons]

Sounds like EU was not alone in their backpedalling

washingtonpost.com

Facing Opposition, U.S. and E.U. Backpedal on Iran Action

By John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, September 23, 2005; A17

VIENNA, Sept. 22 -- The European Union and United States backpedaled Thursday in their drive to have Iran referred to the U.N. Security Council for nuclear treaty violations, following strong opposition from other countries on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear monitoring group.

Russia, China and members of the 115-nation Non-Aligned Movement said during a closed board meeting that they opposed a draft E.U. resolution backed by the United States to escalate pressure on Iran through a Security Council referral.

That prompted the E.U. to float a second, somewhat softer resolution, but it, too, quickly came under fire. E.U. diplomats were scrambling Thursday night to gauge which of the two resolutions had greater support and whether to force a potentially divisive vote before the board meeting's scheduled end on Friday.

The E.U. and United States contend Iran engaged in a covert, 18-year program to develop nuclear technologies, including nuclear weapons, and should be reported to the Security Council. That body could impose sanctions or otherwise try to force Iran to fully disclose and curtail its illicit activities.

Iran responds that it is working only toward developing peaceful nuclear energy, and notes that independent inspections have found no evidence of nuclear weapons development. Iranian officials say the E.U. and U.S. allegations are politically motivated.

At a meeting this week of the IAEA's 35-member board, the opposing sides launched intense lobbying campaigns. The E.U. and United States argue that doing nothing against Iran will undermine efforts to stem nuclear proliferation. Backing down now could hurt their credibility, diplomats and analysts here said.

At Thursday's meeting, the representative from Russia, which is helping Iran build a $1 billion nuclear reactor, was "adamant" against referring Iran to the Security Council, according to a diplomat who attended the closed-door meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity. A Russian reportedly called such a move "counterproductive."

Russia also opposed -- and thus seemed to doom -- the E.U.'s second draft resolution. The Reuters news agency said that resolution proposed finding Iran in "non-compliance" with its nuclear obligations but delaying any referral to the Security Council.

China's representative on the board advocated settling the issue by "diplomatic means" and "continued dialogue." Both China and Russia hold Security Council vetoes.

A statement by the Malaysian ambassador, Rajmah Hussain, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, a Cold War-era grouping whose members avoided taking sides with the superpowers, completely dismissed the E.U.'s arguments against Iran, which is also a member of the movement.

Diplomats here said many countries in the movement were sympathetic to Iran's claim that it was being subjected to "nuclear apartheid" by big powers that want to keep developing countries from acquiring nuclear technology.

Individually, however, some members of the movement delivered more measured statements, diplomats said. Many called on Iran to suspend its recent resumption of uranium conversion. India and South Africa said in their statements that the board should seek a consensus, a signal that the E.U. should not force an up or down vote on the matter, but work out a compromise.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[whottt]

Sounds like EU was not alone in their backpedalling




You need to get your ears checked, they've got European Jizz in them...the US was not negotiating with Iran, and this entire thing was the US aquiescing to those pathetic things you call allies that we have over in Europe...It was going well until one of your favorite sperm donors Schroeder nuked their bargaining stance...nor do I believe for one second that the US is happy with this outcome.

[Marcus Bryant]

The US invasion of Iraq was a nice example for the Iranian govt, but an actual invasion is not desirable. This is part of the reason that Hussein had to be dealt with eventually. As long as he remained in power the US (and West in general) looked incredibly weak in the region. Now its clear that the US means business.

[boutons]

"looked incredibly weak in the region"

And 2 years later, unable to stop the violence and re-build the country, the US not just looks weak but demonstrates daily the US weakness, US unable to control many parts of the country as it breaks into Kurd/Shiite/Sunni regions, while the ware recruits Muslims around the world to join the jihad and beat up on the US tied down in Iraq.

As in Viet Nam, the Muslims will simply out-wait the US invasion, keeping the country in turmoil with a destroyed infrastructure, and then take over once the US leaves.

Iran is EMBOLDEDENED by the Repub Iraq quaqmire. See Iran thumbing their noses at the Europe and USA, with support from Russian and China, on the nuclear issue, knowing the USA doesn't have the resources to "mean business" in Iraq and also fuck up going after Iran.

[Marcus Bryant]

The US took out a regime that thumbed its nose at the US for years. Between Hussein still in power plus all of the successful attacks by al-Qaeda on US interests in the region and then in the US, the US looked rather weak in the region.

The US doesn't look weak today. Only in the media clusterfuck that trumpets every minor terrorist attack in Iraq as a major offensive does the US look weak. The US has their infidel bases in Saudi Arabia and now is all over Iraq after running out the mighty Saddam.

But whatever makes you feel better.