PDA

View Full Version : Iran rejects restraint on nukes



Flagg
06-13-2004, 12:28 AM
Iran Rejects Restraint on Nuclear Program

Jun 12, 7:10 PM (ET)

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Toughening its stance in advance of a meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Iran on Saturday said it would reject international restrictions on its nuclear program and challenged the world to accept Tehran as a member of the "nuclear club."

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi rejected further outside influence on Tehran's nuclear ambitions two days before the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors meets to discuss Iran's highly controversial program.

"We won't accept any new obligations," Kharrazi said. "Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path."

Iran has repeatedly insisted its nuclear program is geared toward generating electricity, not making weapons, but the United States and its allies say Tehran has a secret nuclear weapons program. The IAEA has wrestled with the dilemma for more than a year.

Iran has already suspended uranium enrichment and stopped building centrifuges. It has also allowed IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities without prior notice, part of the additional protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that still must be approved by parliament.

Kharrazi insisted that Iran would not give up its development of the nuclear fuel cycle, the steps for processing and enriching uranium necessary for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Iran says it has achieved the full cycle, but is not now enriching uranium.

"That somebody demands that we give up the nuclear fuel cycle ... is an additional demand," Kharrazi said, apparently referring to demands by U.S. and European countries that Iran halt operations of a plant it inaugurated in March in Isfahan, central Iran, that processes uranium into gas. The demand also calls for aborting plans to build a heavy water reactor in Arak, another city in central Iran.

"We can't accept such an additional demand, which is contrary to our legal and legitimate rights," he said. "No one in Iran can make a decision to deny the nation of something that is a source of pride."

Iran has confirmed possessing technology to extract uranium ore, processing it into a powder called yellow cake and then converting it into gas. The gas is then injected into centrifuges for low-grade enrichment that turns it into fuel for nuclear reactors.

Uranium enriched to low levels has energy uses, while highly enriched uranium can be used in bombs.

Iran suspended uranium enrichment last year under mounting international pressure. In April, it said it had stopped building centrifuges. IAEA inspectors had found traces of highly enriched uranium at two sites, which Iranian officials have maintained was from contaminated imported materials.

Kharrazi condemned a draft resolution critical of Iran drawn up by Germany, France and Britain and being debated before the IAEA board meeting Monday which says Iran's cooperation has not been complete.

"The draft resolution is unacceptable unless changes are made so that it can be acceptable to all parties," he said.

The minister said insistence by Europeans on "very tiny issues is contrary to the spirit of cooperation." He said that by doing so, the European countries are bowing to U.S. pressure and showing a "lack of independence."

Kharrazi warned that failure in settling the debate over Iran's nuclear dossier will be a "failure for all," including Iran, Europe and the IAEA.

The minister confirmed Iran's efforts to buy 4,000 magnets needed for uranium enrichment equipment, saying the issue was blown out of proportion. He did not say where the magnets were bought.

Diplomats told The Associated Press in Vienna that Iran had acknowledged inquiring about 4,000 magnets needed for uranium enrichment equipment with a European black-market supplier and had dangled the possibility of buying a "higher number."

"If everybody is looking to settle this issue (Iran's nuclear dossier), they have to look at it in a broad outlook," Kharrazi said.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said last month his agency had not found proof to date of a concrete link between Iran's nuclear activities and its military program, but "it was premature to make a judgment."

usa320
06-13-2004, 12:30 AM
these morons should just do what the UN asks or they will be in a world of trouble.

Iraq's WMD program under saddam was disconcerting. But the thought of Iran having Nukes just scares the **** out of me.

Secret Squirrel
06-13-2004, 12:35 AM
"...but the United States and its allies say Tehran has a secret nuclear weapons program." <--does that "intelligence" sound familar to anyone? rofl

Red
06-13-2004, 12:38 AM
these morons should just do what the UN asks or they will be in a world of trouble.

Iraq's WMD program under saddam was disconcerting. But the thought of Iran having Nukes just scares the **** out of me.
and if they don't comply,what would happen?an invasion?

usa320
06-13-2004, 12:40 AM
To say that IRan doesnt have the capabilty to have nukes in the next 3 or 4 years would be irresponisble, as they most certainly do.

I dont think an invasion of Iran would behouve us.

Covert action and internal reform influenced from the outside seem like the only path to take.

Red
06-13-2004, 12:42 AM
To say that IRan doesnt have the capabilty to have nukes in the next 3 or 4 years would be irresponisble, as they most certainly do.

I dont think an invasion of Iran would behouve us.

Covert action and internal reform influenced from the outside seem like the only path to take.
Well i am no policy expert but i think in other to have an effective sanction regime against Iran,the US will need the co-operation of countries such as France and Germany.And we all know what the realtionship between these countries are

usa320
06-13-2004, 12:43 AM
France and Germany are the reason that Iran has half this equipment in the first place, and the Russians...

They do anything for money, regardless of the possible reprecussions.

EvanL
06-13-2004, 12:44 AM
To say that IRan doesnt have the capabilty to have nukes in the next 3 or 4 years would be irresponisble, as they most certainly do.

I dont think an invasion of Iran would behouve us.

Covert action and internal reform influenced from the outside seem like the only path to take.
dude thats all you ever talk about. covert actions arent always plausible. think of the international outcry if these guys were caught?
Diplomatic pressure on a country like Iran is best for now.

EvanL
06-13-2004, 12:45 AM
France and Germany are the reason that Iran has half this equipment in the first place, and the Russians...

They do anything for money, regardless of the possible reprecussions.
DOnt get started on that man.
Wat France has done in the M.E., teh U.S. did in south america.
I dont think any country has clean hands.
But dont try to point the finger.

Red
06-13-2004, 12:45 AM
To say that IRan doesnt have the capabilty to have nukes in the next 3 or 4 years would be irresponisble, as they most certainly do.

I dont think an invasion of Iran would behouve us.

Covert action and internal reform influenced from the outside seem like the only path to take.
dude thats all you ever talk about. covert actions arent always plausible. think of the international outcry if these guys were caught?
Diplomatic pressure on a country like Iran is best for now.
That is what i would prescribe because i wont want to make them to jittery but at the same time i dont want them to be too comfortable

Ratamacue
06-13-2004, 12:46 AM
usa320, just stop talking. Please. You're making my brain hurt.

Kilgor
06-13-2004, 12:48 AM
It will be up to Israel to put the issue at rest again.

Red
06-13-2004, 12:51 AM
It will be up to Israel to put the issue at rest again.
By bombing them?i doubt that will be a good idea.Sometimes violence is not the answer rather you employ effective diplomacy in other to contain a situation rather than take a "bull by the horn" approach

usa320
06-13-2004, 12:53 AM
effective diplomacy with iran does not exist.

these guys are completely and utterly insane.

Saddam was dumb but he knew he was gonna get beat.

Iran on the other hand actually thinks they can beat us.

Ratamacue
06-13-2004, 12:54 AM
effective diplomacy with iran does not exist.

these guys are completely and utterly insane.

Saddam was dumb but he knew he was gonna get beat.

Iran on the other hand actually thinks they can beat us.
Look at usa320, master of foreign policy. Leave the analyzations and decision-making to people who actually know what the **** they're talking about.

EvanL
06-13-2004, 12:55 AM
effective diplomacy with iran does not exist.

these guys are completely and utterly insane.

Saddam was dumb but he knew he was gonna get beat.

Iran on the other hand actually thinks they can beat us.
And i assume you already have the plan of invasion written up? you keep a copy with you while your stocking the shelves at your job right?

Red
06-13-2004, 12:55 AM
effective diplomacy with iran does not exist.

these guys are completely and utterly insane.

Saddam was dumb but he knew he was gonna get beat.

Iran on the other hand actually thinks they can beat us.
Well i dont agree with your position.I think that there is always room for diplomacy as long as it is employed in the right manner.

EvanL
06-13-2004, 12:58 AM
I believe a great man once said, "War is diplomacy by other means."
I guess the same could be said for diplomacy.
"Diplomacy is war by other means"
Use an iron fist by gaining support of other countries and the UN, which im sure wouldnt be hard in the case of Iran.

Red
06-13-2004, 01:04 AM
I believe a great man once said, "War is diplomacy by other means."
I guess the same could be said for diplomacy.
"Diplomacy is war by other means"
Use an iron fist by gaining support of other countries and the UN, which im sure wouldnt be hard in the case of Iran.
exactly.It is alwys a good thing to talk softly but carry a big stick

n4292936
06-13-2004, 01:07 AM
yes, it was the famous Prussian officer and military theorist Carl Phillip... Clausewitz said that war is an extension of political policy by other means. Very insightful man indeed.
USA320, until you either read several books about Iran's history (I can recomend "All the Shah's Men") or learn an iota of the regions history/ethnography you may want to stop making some pretense towards knowledge that you don't posses - like what "Iran ...actually thinks"

EvanL
06-13-2004, 01:10 AM
Too bad we dont have any Iranian members to give some good insight.

Red
06-13-2004, 01:11 AM
Too bad we dont have any Iranian members to give some good insight.
You never know :D

EvanL
06-13-2004, 01:13 AM
Too bad we dont have any Iranian members to give some good insight.
You never know :DIm sure if we do, they are in hiding. :|

Secret Squirrel
06-13-2004, 03:35 AM
I believe a great man once said, "War is diplomacy by other means."
I guess the same could be said for diplomacy.
"Diplomacy is war by other means"
Use an iron fist by gaining support of other countries and the UN, which im sure wouldnt be hard in the case of Iran.

Yea i think the exact or close translation is "war is the continuation of policy by other means." Essentually an argument as to why wars begin and the relationship between the Commander-in-chief, the military and the people. It's a pity that Clausewitz died before he finished his writing.

GazB
06-13-2004, 05:00 AM
Don't understand the problem here guys?

The Iranians are wanting nuclear power technology and are saying that the international community won't stop them getting it.

The Americans are saying what they really want is nuclear weapons technology and they want to stop them getting any nuclear technology to slow them down from getting nuclear weapons technology.

The Russians are currently building a nuclear power station in Iran for the Iranians. The US threatened to withdraw offers of loans if the Russians didn't stop helping the Iranians with their nuclear power program. The Russians (Putin) basically said that a 6 billion dollar contract with the Iranians was worth more than 2 billion in US loans (that of course have to be paid back).
We hear a lot about the leaders in Iran and their anti Israeli rhetoric but looking at their actual actions I don't think they are any more dangerous than the arab states in the region.

They have been abused by the west in the past (British companies owned their oil till they nationalised it) and the American CIA has interfered with their elections on many occasions and installed a rather unpleasent leader that they had to suffer under for a few years. (The money the Shah spent in the west on weapons actually indirectly created the M1 Abrams and directly led to the creation of the Challenger... fortunately for the west the Shah-1 wasn't delivered as it would have handed Chobham armour to the Iranians.... whose money developed it.)

I can understand Americans not likeing Iranians much with all that hostage taking and support for anti Israeli forces, but I think the west started things on the wrong foot. On a scale I think the Iranians have suffered rather more at US involvement than the US has suffered due to Iranian involvement.

usa320
06-13-2004, 02:20 PM
I think the first step to addressing the Iranian problem is definately to gain the support of the UN, which we pretty much already have.

Then you have many options open to you.

-Max2-
06-13-2004, 02:36 PM
France and Germany are the reason that Iran has half this equipment in the first place, and the Russians...

BS, France and Germany NEVER supplied Iran with nuclear power technology.

Its the Russians who supplied all the equipment needed to build a nuclear weapon. Good job, Russia... :roll:


They do anything for money, regardless of the possible reprecussions

Its rather funny to read that when everybody know that the US supported Iran and a dictator during years... :roll:

SOG
06-13-2004, 03:26 PM
To say that IRan doesnt have the capabilty to have nukes in the next 3 or 4 years would be irresponisble, as they most certainly do.

I dont think an invasion of Iran would behouve us.

Covert action and internal reform influenced from the outside seem like the only path to take.
dude thats all you ever talk about. covert actions arent always plausible. think of the international outcry if these guys were caught?
Diplomatic pressure on a country like Iran is best for now.
That is what i would prescribe because i wont want to make them to jittery but at the same time i dont want them to be too comfortable

israel may simply bomb thier nuke productions as done before "elsewhere". let em arm up, rant and rave, then watch israel poop on thier parade.

Moledet
06-13-2004, 05:57 PM
effective diplomacy with iran does not exist.

these guys are completely and utterly insane.

Saddam was dumb but he knew he was gonna get beat.

Iran on the other hand actually thinks they can beat us.
Well i dont agree with your position.I think that there is always room for diplomacy as long as it is employed in the right manner.
US, shuld try diplomacy, Israel on the other hand has other ways to defend its existence. And what a surprise, few months ago Israel got the right equipment to do the right thing.

P.S. Before you call me a paranoid, check what one of Iran leaders said few months ago about Israel. As far as I remeber he said: "When a muslim country will get nuclear weapons they should use it against Israel"
And,
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/shihab_11_03.htm

usa320
06-13-2004, 09:27 PM
let em arm up, rant and rave, then watch israel poop on thier parade.

rofl

SeanAshi
06-13-2004, 09:35 PM
If we abide by real legal laws, we should mobilize the whole Islamic World for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime… if we abide by the Koran, all of us should mobilize to kill.” Yawwwwwwwwwwwn. :roll: