EU's Solana disappointed after Iran nuclear talks

[Snoshi]

LONDON (AFP) - The European Union's foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Friday he was "disappointed" at his latest talks with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, amid growing threats of new sanctions against Tehran.

But the Iranian envoy described the talks as "good," and said the two men had agreed to meet again next month, after a five-hour meeting in London hours ahead of a deadline for Solana to report back to world powers on the issue.

"I have to admit that after five hours of meetings I expected more, and therefore I am disappointed," Solana told reporters, emerging from the crunch talks in central London.

Minutes earlier the Iranian negotiator had emerged with a different assessment.

"For five hours now I have been talking with Mr. Solana and we have had good negotiations," the Iranian said. "We agreed to continue with our negotiations and we also agreed to arrange for a meeting next month."

He left the building before Solana emerged separately to give his more downbeat view -- although the EU official confirmed that more talks were planned.

"We will be in telephonic contact probably before the end of the month of December and if the circumstances permit we will meet and that will be agreed later on," he said.

Western nations suspect Iran is using its nuclear programme to covertly develop a nuclear bomb. Despite Iranian denials, the United States and its allies are pressing for stronger UN sanctions against Tehran.

After Friday's talks Solana is expected to brief the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany, whose representatives are scheduled to meet in Paris on Saturday.

"The communication of Mr. Solana will be presented in a few hours or tomorrow through the participation of his senior adviser in the talks in Paris," said Solana's spokeswoman Cristina Gallach before the talks.

US critics say Iran is continuing a long-standing strategy of diplomatic brinksmanship, offering last-minute compromises to delay further sanctions while pressing ahead with its nuclear plans.

Solana, normally extremely optimistic, has appeared increasingly frustrated in recent weeks, as time has slipped away for him to make his evaluation to the UN Security Council by the November 30 deadline.

Tehran is under two sets of UN sanctions, as well as unilateral US sanctions, for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.

The process can fuel a nuclear reactor or, at highly refined levels, be used to build an atomic weapon.

The United States in particular is threatening new UN sanctions, although if these cannot be agreed Washington is believed to be ready to impose unilateral sanctions, as could Britain and France.

Solana has been trying to create the conditions for broader negotiations in which Tehran would halt nuclear enrichment in exchange for a package of political, economic and trade incentives.

"The objective of this kind of meeting is to try and create the appropriate framework for a formal negotiation with the Iranians," said Gallach.

Critics say Tehran has played off the five permanent security council members plus Germany -- the six powers involved in the dossier -- counting on China and Russia to block further sanctions demanded by the United States.

Even as the talks got underway Iran's former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani warned the West to avoid threats.

"Threats and fear-mongering make Iran more serious and guard against them," he said in his Friday prayer sermon, broadcast live on state radio.

"If their objective from negotiations is adventurism, they must rest assured that their fate in Iran will be definitely worse than the one they ended up by invasions of other places," the prominent cleric said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071130/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpolitics_071130162523

How many of these meetings have already been held without the result? And all the time we hear. "talks are progressing"

[Mastermind]

I suspect anyone who is "negotiating" with Muslims over their weapons and territorial demands will have to just get accustomed to dissappoinment.

[muck]

What the heck has this to do with religion? Completely nothing since the whole conflict is only a result of wrongheaded power games lasting for decades now.

[Mastermind]

Oh, I dunno...Iran needing nuclear weapons to start the great conflagration that will bring up the Islamic Great Savior, Mullahs coming out of wells, Armageddon, avowed destruction of the holy land and Israel, Islam conquering the world...

Hell...come to think of it, I guess yer right...it dosen't have a dmned thing to do with religion. Oh, well, then...never mind.

[ZBull84]

That was the carrot phase, now has to comes the time for the stick (limited sanctions) and then after that a time for the second carrot.

[shocker1]

What the heck has this to do with religion? Completely nothing since the whole conflict is only a result of wrongheaded power games lasting for decades now.
From who's perspective?
http://64.40.99.49/Multimedia%5Cpics%5C1385%5C8%5Cphoto%5C592.jpg

[Van Gogh]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071201/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc

[Pars]

Oh, I dunno...Iran needing nuclear weapons to start the great conflagration that will bring up the Islamic Great Savior, Mullahs coming out of wells, Armageddon, avowed destruction of the holy land and Israel, Islam conquering the world...

Yes of course, that's the sole reason why Iran "pursuing" nuclear weapons. :cantbeli:

[Erik Sleivöks]

Yes of course, that's the sole reason why Iran "pursuing" nuclear weapons. :cantbeli:

Officially Iran is (as you know very well) not at all “pursuing” any nuclear weapons.

However and as they say in the aviation business; if an unlikely event was to occur and Iran one day comes on the world scene with a nuclear arsenal, the current leadership, in their “grand wisdom” could unfortunately envisage such a “religious” move.
This is what the whole world fears and it is the (in my opinion) the second biggest reason to insure that Iran will never access such weapons.

[Pars]

Officially Iran is (as you know very well) not at all “pursuing” any nuclear weapons.

However and as they say in the aviation business; if an unlikely event was to occur and Iran one day comes on the world scene with a nuclear arsenal, the current leadership, in their “grand wisdom” could unfortunately envisage such a “religious” move.
This is what the whole world fears and it is the (in my opinion) the second biggest reason to insure that Iran will never access such weapons.

Look, however much I despise the current regime in Iran - I do believe that they think more in terms of real politik, not in religious madness. Even though their domestic choices are at times, strange to say the least.They're out to ensure their own survival, their grip on power.

That doesn't mean I think obtaining atomic weapons are in Iran's interests. I hope we can avoid any further escalation in the region, and that it is possible to reach a deal. However, the US isn't contributing to that as of late either.

[Erik Sleivöks]

Look, however much I despise the current regime in Iran - I do believe that they think more in terms of real politik, not in religious madness. Even though their domestic choices are at times, strange to say the least.They're out to ensure their own survival, their grip on power.

That doesn't mean I think obtaining atomic weapons are in Iran's interests. I hope we can avoid any further escalation in the region, and that it is possible to reach a deal. However, the US isn't contributing to that as of late either.

You are 100% right, and I couldn’t agree more.

My fear is not the current regime and their “realpolitik”, but what will happen “tomorrow” when it will become more and more difficult for them to hang on to the power. The religious thinking could very well become more fanatic and when “pushed” such people becomes very unpredictable.

However this remains very “theoretical” thinking and it is impossible to predict the future, but when we know the regime, and some of their religious theories (I am not a specialist in the religious side, and could stand corrected) there are some worrying possibilities in sight.

[Mastermind]

Well, no reason then for the world to keep nuclear material from the greatest supporter of terrorism in the world. I say, we should encourage them to gain the nuclear geni...we should do all we can to help them. Once they have their dream nuclear powers, they will probably mature quite a bit on the world stage. A state that has nuclear weapons, is also a very popular nuclear target. Nothing sobers up a lunatic state like having 50 megaton nuclear weapons pointed straight at their heartland.

[Zerazax]

I would actually say letting them know what its like to go nuclear would mean might be an interesting option... After all, nukes have never been used in war in retaliation - maybe if an actual lesson were taught to people who seek to use it, they would put some better thought into it before deciding ruling over a parking lot is what they want?

[Snoshi]

I would actually say letting them know what its like to go nuclear would mean might be an interesting option... After all, nukes have never been used in war in retaliation - maybe if an actual lesson were taught to people who seek to use it, they would put some better thought into it before deciding ruling over a parking lot is what they want?

Yeah.. Give Iran nukes.. And after that Egyptian and Saudi nukes will follow and then every country in Middle East will have nukes of which many are unstable...

[Zerazax]

Yeah.. Give Iran nukes.. And after that Egyptian and Saudi nukes will follow and then every country in Middle East will have nukes of which many are unstable...

It was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek but yes, it will create an arms race, but sometimes that might be what's needed to keep people stable. After all, the threat of nuclear war probably kept the US and USSR from colliding head on / escalating conflict beyond proxy wars throughout the Cold War. And if someone does pull the nuclear trigger, they should be made an example of why it's not a good idea..

[Snoshi]

It was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek but yes, it will create an arms race, but sometimes that might be what's needed to keep people stable. After all, the threat of nuclear war probably kept the US and USSR from colliding head on / escalating conflict beyond proxy wars throughout the Cold War. And if someone does pull the nuclear trigger, they should be made an example of why it's not a good idea..

So wait you are willing to sacrifice Middle East just to teach the world some lesson? No thanks.

USA and Soviet Union were stable countries that were ruled by "rational" leaders. I would not call Egypt or Saudi Arabia stable. We already got Pakistan with nukes and that enough.

[Zerazax]

So wait you are willing to sacrifice Middle East just to teach the world some lesson? No thanks.

USA and Soviet Union were stable countries that were ruled by "rational" leaders. I would not call Egypt or Saudi Arabia stable. We already got Pakistan with nukes and that enough.

I understand what you are saying and would rather not make a lesson out of anyone but the simple fact of the matter is, nuclear weapons are here and they will stay.

I base a lot of my beliefs on this: one day in the future, be it 200 years from now or tomorrow, nuclear weapons will be used again. I think it's inevitable - you can only take from the lessons of WW2 for so long before someone else tries something that creates a global conflict. Treaties only last so long as well, as do political powers and nations.

And I believe that humanity does advance technologically over time, and it can only be so long before nations try to find their way to nukes as Pakistan and India did independently, S. Africa, Israel, etc. You can only keep humans from developing technologically for so long. Obviously, finding the material and the infrastructure isn't as easy to come by, but if you have the will and support to do so, it will eventually happen whether we like it or not (be it clandestine or not, who knows how many countries have things in place to do so but choose not to even).

Unfortunate as it is, we did have to sacrifice people to teach the world a lesson. Hiroshima and Nagasaki told people that nuclear weapons were devastating - and it certainly put it in perspective and probably kept us from using nuclear weapons again in the past 60 years. Hell, people were advocating putting nukes on every type of armament possible and it was probably the fact that we knew its true toll that prevented us from using it in other situations (such as Korea). Lessons, unfortunately, can only stick with us for so long - people forget lessons as time passes.

Thus that's my position: countries will inevitably try to develop nukes, and you can keep some people out for only so long (after all, when getting a nuke puts you in the elite country club of country's aka making you basically untouchable conventionally, people will want to get in on the action) and eventually one day someone will try to use one, be it tomorrow or within the next 1000 years. And they'll have to be taught a lesson. I don't want to see that happen, and I wish everyone would just shut up about nukes and leave it out forever, but its the can of worms we opened and unfortunately its here to stay.

[Pars]

You are 100% right, and I couldn’t agree more.

My fear is not the current regime and their “realpolitik”, but what will happen “tomorrow” when it will become more and more difficult for them to hang on to the power. The religious thinking could very well become more fanatic and when “pushed” such people becomes very unpredictable.

However this remains very “theoretical” thinking and it is impossible to predict the future, but when we know the regime, and some of their religious theories (I am not a specialist in the religious side, and could stand corrected) there are some worrying possibilities in sight.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. If pushed and desperate, then yes - the madmen in power could resort to irrational behaviour. Just to make it clear, I only want Iran to obtain nuclear energy, not atomic weapons. However, stoping it by force will only backfire, in my opinion.

Anyway, stay safe.

[roland]

May be that have nothing to do with religion but that's religion that make them focking scary. With religious nuts you never know: they aren't rational and predicatable and how do you want to do deterence with some that think that death can be better than life ?
Plus it would open the proliferation pandorra box so ... resolution is useless without action, but resolution is a good political preparation before action.

[Mastermind]

I wonder if nukes are as much a deterrent as their cost and upkeep considering they have very little real use militarily. This may be even more significant in a nation that is surrounded by conventionally armed competitor nations. No nation has limitless resources to expend on military hardware. A nuclear program is very expensive...almost exhaustively so. This is probably why Iran has no nukes (that we know of) to this day and is very likely not going to get them in the near future. The lame excuse they use for their failure to attain nuclear power is that they are really only developing nukes for peaceful energy purposes. If that were so, why would it be taking this long? They really don't need to develop their own fuel making capability, since on the world market, lower grade power plant fuel is rather inexpensive considering the glut on the market due to the disassembly of old nuclear weapons and the ready availability of the warheads being converted into nuclear fuel. Iran will have none of that even though Russia has brokered a deal to supply such fuel…Iran continues to drag her feet on those kinds of deals due to the attached inspections clauses. There really is no need to hesitate on such inspections since they are sponsored and primarily conducted under supervision of the supplying nation under strict adherence to the contracts with due reports and oversight of the UN. Obviously, the only reason for such resistance is that Iran is actively perusing development of nuclear weapons. Now, anyone who wishes to believe otherwise, well...you are probably in first grade and also believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny, too. That is not to say Iran will ever really develop such weapons…it would seem the mere “pursuit” of such is quite enough to get what they desire, which is destabilization of the west and a semi-respectable place at the world forums. They sure are not being ignored anymore…and that is a huge accomplishment over what Iran was receiving over the last twenty years or more.

Western media are filled with Iran excuses and actually help Iran disseminate false pretenses to fit the desired belief systems. No one wants a nuclear or even a conventional showdown. The destabilizing effects of such a confrontation are unimaginably expensive in terms of global economic damage. The unification of world wide stock markets has been the true global stabilization machine...not nuclear weapons. Oil and other mass commodities are the life blood of that massive market. Naturally, the market controlled media is going to tone down any real threat from Iran or anyone else, for that matter.

No single government, especially the US, with so much to loose in a sudden down turn if a major oil supplier were to be attacked is going to initiate violent action. However, a nation with seeming suicidal tendencies, armed with a small nuclear weapons stock pile could bring about such a disaster by instigating a preemptive attack if it were able to convince the US (or any other nuclear power) it was a real and immediate threat. Iran's present strategy seems hell bent on such a path. If their efforts were not so transparent and juvenile, they might actually succeed. So, the western strategy right now seems to be to keep the threat level down, to keep their people calm and not excited enough to cause a political shift toward more militancy (this is why, I believe we see so much "fluff" in the media nowadays...rich dead blond white girls seem to serve the distraction machine quite nicely). The elections in the US are not talking about Iran or their nuclear threats at all..."What's your favorite color?" type questions are all the rage in a very highly critical election cycle...amazingly. So, it appears the distraction and calming policies are working great.

But, that does not mean the direct and real threats are reduced...they are there...they are real. Eventually, they will have to be dealt with. Just not for any time soon.