Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Erikl

Iran won't drop nuclear program

101 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Erikl

Iran won't drop nuclear program

By ASSOCIATED PRESS AND JPOST STAFF

TEHERAN, Iran

According to Britain's The Sunday Times on Sunday, Ariel Sharon's inner cabinet gave "initial authorization," about a month ago, for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear program.

The Times also claimed that Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practice destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel's elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.

In a meeting in Mexico City Friday, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom asked Mexican President Vicente Fox to take a tough line on Iran. "The idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare not only for us but for the whole world," Shalom said. Mexico is one of several dozen members of the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors.

US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations.

But Iran scoffed at US incentives aimed at coaxing the Islamic republic to drop its nuclear ambitions, with Teheran saying Saturday that Washington's overtures offered nothing in the way of a concession.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said neither threats nor incentives would alter Iran's determination to develop peaceful nuclear technology. An Iranian envoy in Europe agreed, but acknowledged in guardedly positive terms there appeared to be a "new awakening" in Washington.

Washington insists Teheran's uranium enrichment program is aimed at developing a bomb, not merely providing an alternative energy source.

Teheran's defiance came a day after the Bush administration softened its stance on how to thwart Iran's nuclear program and agreed to support a European plan that offers economic incentives for the Teheran government to give up any weapons ambitions.

US concessions announced by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice include dropping opposition to Iran's application for membership in the World Trade Organization and allowing the sale of some spare parts for civilian aircraft. Rice signaled that Iran should quickly accept – or face the threat of harsh United Nations Security Council sanctions.

Asefi said Rice's offer was no offer at all.

"The restrictions on spare parts that have no military purpose should have not been imposed from the beginning, and lifting them is not an incentive," state-run radio quoted Asefi as saying.

And, he said, "joining the WTO is an obvious right of any country in the world."

Washington previously had insisted Iran deserves no reward for simply abiding by an international arms compact that forbids nuclear weapons development.

Asefi accused Washington of issuing false and "hypocritical" claims about Teheran's nuclear ambitions, and pushing European Union negotiators closer toward Washington's tougher stance.

"Iran is determined to use peaceful nuclear technology and no pressure, incentive or threat can force Iran to give up its rights," Asefi said.

However, Sirous Nasseri, an Iranian envoy in Europe who spoke by telephone from Geneva with The Associated Press in Vienna, described Rice's announcement Friday as a "new awakening... I believe would stand to benefit the United States more than anybody else." Still, he warned against what he suggested were unrealistic expectations, saying nothing would result in Iran giving up its right to enrichment.

Iran suspended its uranium enrichment activities last year to create confidence in its negotiations and avoid Security Council referral. But Teheran says maintaining the voluntary freeze depends on progress in ongoing talks with Britain, Germany and France, who are negotiating on behalf of the European Union.

The Europeans want to get an Iranian commitment to scrap enrichment plans in exchange for economic aid, technical support and backing for Teheran's efforts to join mainstream international organizations.

Nasseri, a participant in the Geneva negotiations, also suggested the Europeans were leaning toward a compromise that could include monitored guarantees that the uranium being processed did not go beyond low enrichment – adequate for fuel purposes – and did not approach the high levels that would make it weapons grade.

However, European diplomats, who demanded anonymity, told the AP in Vienna on Saturday that France, Germany and Britain continued to demand a dismantling or indefinite freeze.

Russia, meanwhile, welcomed the softening of the US stance.

Russia hopes US actions will conform with "the line that both Russia and Western European countries are pursuing in efforts to remove all questions relating to the character of Iran's nuclear program on the basis of cooperation," Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said.

Russia, which is building a nuclear reactor in Iran under a contract that has caused US concern for years, has expressed support for the EU's diplomatic efforts.

SOURCE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Manfred

So?

If the world is letting the US keep its nukes then I say let Iran have em too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walken

Uh-huh. Double Standards, anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl
Uh-huh. Double Standards, anyone?

523538[/snapback]

Let's forget WW2 for a second....

The US is a democracy, Iran is a dictatorial theocracy......

I don't see double standards here at all.

(Even though a world with no nukes would be much better than one with those horrible weapons).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am me
Uh-huh. Double Standards, anyone?

523538[/snapback]

Let's forget WW2 for a second....

The US is a democracy, Iran is a dictatorial theocracy......

I don't see double standards here at all.

(Even though a world with no nukes would be much better than one with those horrible weapons).

523571[/snapback]

Now why does the type of government involved have anything to do with the choice to have nuclear weapons?

Iran elects many of their officials. Click Here

They have 290 elected members in their legislative section. 12 are appointed. There is a supreme ruler and then a president. Their government really is not much different than ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Roswell Man

some people will have u to believe otherwise... disgust.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scorpius

The irony and hypocracy, it never fails to shine. rolleyes.gif So, the war of the nukes is slowly being played. gunsmilie.gifcat.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
matt99r6
So?

If the world is letting the US keep its nukes then I say let Iran have em too.

523471[/snapback]

haha. That sort makes me think of a police officer having a gun and then when a convicted killer wants to go buy a gun "Well...the cops have them...ok here ya go!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
So?

If the world is letting the US keep its nukes then I say let Iran have em too.

523471[/snapback]

haha. That sort makes me think of a police officer having a gun and then when a convicted killer wants to go buy a gun "Well...the cops have them...ok here ya go!".

525811[/snapback]

The difference is, the US isnt a cop any more than Iran is.

However, its the international community which doesnt want Iran to have nukes, not just the US. The world is trying to stop new nations from getting nukes to keep the world as it is, instead of taking the risk that it becomes worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riffie

I dont believe for a second that Israel will raid the country(Iran).

really thats sucide, first of all the Shi'it will destabilize Iraq and make it a lot worse for the US.

and second the population of Iran is a Military planners wetdream, there are a lot of young people willing to fight for there country especially when its agains Israel.

and if they attack it will set the region back a year or 30 wink2.gif

well thats what i believe anyways grin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Novo

And our leaders care why?-As long as they maintain power, Were all nothing but cannon fodder. Shelved as we may be, If theres a war in iran I dont see it that way much longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
and second the population of Iran is a Military planners wetdream, there are a lot of young people willing to fight for there country especially when its agains Israel.

Except that (I've heard) theres a growing majority who dont like their government and would rather a more western style one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riffie
and second the population of Iran is a Military planners wetdream, there are a lot of young people willing to fight for there country especially when its agains Israel.

Except that (I've heard) theres a growing majority who don't like their government and would rather a more western style one...

526439[/snapback]

and you think that the younger people will kill the elders so that the could go to the movies and have rock and roll music????

come on it will only united them, and after the dust steles they will make a compremie with echother!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aliwigan

Good on Iran having nuclear weapons! It's make you wonder why they hate western world..

I don't believe US should have nuclear weapons and they no right to tell other countrys what's they can't have...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
and you think that the younger people will kill the elders so that the could go to the movies and have rock and roll music????

And you think they'll fight for a government they dont like?

I don't believe US should have nuclear weapons and they no right to tell other countrys what's they can't have...........

The US isnt the only country telling Iran it shouldnt have them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
newyork

The difference is that the US will not use their nuclear weapons first despite the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Method

WAR ... what is it good for? I see another coming up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs
WAR ... what is it good for? I see another coming up.

526978[/snapback]

Hey, wasn't that a song..."WAR, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! YEAH, SAY IT AGAIN!"....

War is good for a lot of things, the economy, over-population, etc. etc. .... unfortunately people have to die.

I wonder where this will end...more concern is on Syria right now. I guess Syria should be taken care of or handled before Iran comes on our (U.S.) agenda. I don't think we have to spread ourselves thin. Things are looking good in Lebanon and liberals here in the states are seeing Bush in a new (favorable) light. They think he is brighter than they gave him credit for now.

Yes, we're keeping our nukes....I think that's a good idea. cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

War isn't good, period.

Unfortunately, I think an all out war is very near. Iran developing nukes, Syria under pressure to leave Lebanon, Hezbollah to try and have it's last battle before it's possible disarment....

everything seems to be on the edge here these days sad.gif.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wunarmdscissor
War is good for a lot of things, the economy, over-population, etc. etc. .... unfortunately people have to die

and thats a good thing???????

PLus war isnt always good for the economy , look at the US economy right now?.

Iran wont develop the bomb , their sabre rattling. Its been done for centuries by EVERY nation on earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl
War is good for a lot of things, the economy, over-population, etc. etc. .... unfortunately people have to die

and thats a good thing???????

PLus war isnt always good for the economy , look at the US economy right now?.

Iran wont develop the bomb , their sabre rattling. Its been done for centuries by EVERY nation on earth.

527772[/snapback]

I disagree... they kinda investing in this huge sums of money for the last 10 years.... so I'm pretty sure they are trying to get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am me

looks like iran is rushing to get the bomb so they can tell us to **** off. just like north korea has done. it will work if they have the weapon. iran is next on our targeting list. it will give our government more world power and control if it takes control of iran.

but really, who are we or our government to dictate what other countries around the world do? some of you talk like it it is our right to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

My husband just came from ground zero, 911...There were thousands of people there, crying into a big hole in the earth. ph34r.gif He was in tears, too. He called me on the phone and said that 'he wants to get them even more, now!'

That's why we are in this fight and that's why we have the right to stop others from getting WMD....

I think N. Korea is rattling the sabre.

Iran is talking big, they know we are busy right now... and I think they have lost their marbles. wacko.gif Iran seems to be going the same direction as Iraq.

Edited by Babs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sultanmuratova

im sorry babs, but get who?

Irag did not cause ground zero i thought that was Al quaida?

Iraq was attacked because they had so called 'weapons of mass destruction'

and US is wrong for trying to make Iran get rid of their nuclear program while the US has it as well.

if they want to preach to others they first have to change themselves, what? Is the US the only country that is allowed to have nukes?

I stand on Iran side on this one, who is the US to say who can and cannot have nuclear constructions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
if they want to preach to others they first have to change themselves, what? Is the US the only country that is allowed to have nukes?

Actually, its supposed to be the current 8 (disregarding NK) that are supposed to be "allowed" to have nukes, and that was accepted by the international community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.