Iran Talks Fail: World Wondering What To Do Next
The BBC reports that the talks between the EU-3 and Iran have caved in.
The discussions were called by Iran in a final bid to avoid possible UN action over its nuclear programme.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, will decide on Monday if action is needed.
Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accused the IAEA of being politically motivated and influenced by Western powers.
At Friday's talks, officials from the UK, France and Germany - the so-called EU3 - said they were there to listen to Iran, but they presented no new plans of their own.
A letter from the EU3 to Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, warned Iran earlier this week that any progress would be dependent on Iran stepping up co-operation with UN inspectors.
After the meeting, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said talks "were carried out in a constructive atmosphere but finally we were unable to reach agreement."
The EU and much of the international community want Iran to suspend all nuclear enrichment work, fearing it could eventually lead to arms production. Iran insists its only aim is civilian use.
Uh-huh, and I am Minnie Mouse. There is no solid evidence available for that claim, and more than enough to show precisely the opposite. Iran has cracked the IAEA seals on it's facilities, and demanded the cameras the IAEA installed be shut off. If Iran's goal is truly peaceful, and they have nothing to hide, why turn off the cameras? Prove it to the IAEA, and the UN Security Council that your aim truly is for a peaceful use of nuclear energy.
But we know different. We have watched this game be played out in the past. We watched it while the UN dawdled over Saddam Hussein and his WMD programs. The same sort of screwing around. The same "go-nowhere" negotiations. The same twiddling of thumbs by the UN and issuing resolution after resolution that Saddam ignored.
The same will happen with Iran. Russia and China are members of the security council, and have veto powers. I can assure everyone that France will not be the one to upset this stand-off; Chirac is shouting his head off in France that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. It is Russia and China that we have to worry about. They have a "brokeback diplomacy" sort of view with Iran; to them it is all business no matter what is traded.
China and Iran are close to closing a deal that would allow China to develop the Yadavaran oil field. Russia and Iran have business deals of their own, aside from the uranium enrichment deal the two have been working on.
That's not our only concern. We also worry about Iran's would-be partners in nuclear enrichment. The Russians have billions of dollars tied up in contracts with Iran, much of them in military weaponry. They've already built Iran a nuclear plant, in Bushehr. This deal just might be a backdoor to more business for Russia.
Only two months ago, Russia signed a $700 million deal with Iran to provide it with an air-defense missile system — the only possible use of which would be to shoot down U.S. or European planes in the event of an attack. Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation reports, "Rumors linger that Russia may still be willing to sell its powerful S-300 missile systems to Iran."
We're also reminded of the newly documented ties between Russia and Saddam's regime — ties that extended, apparently, to Russian generals and Spetznaz troops helping Iraq hide its weapons of mass destruction from U.S. and U.N. inspectors.
Would it not be prudent to suspect that a similar deal lay on the horizon should the UN Security Council issue a resolution for Iran to stop it's nuclear program? One that, like the one with Iraq, would have Russian Spetznaz moving Iran's secret WMDs before a possible invasion? Granted, should Iran become nuclear, the idea of an invasion seems highly unlikely, and a greater possibility occurs where we may have no choice but to use our own nuclear weapons, especially if Iran decides to follwo through with it's threat to wipe Israel off the map.
This issue is slowly reaching critical mass. Some serious steps need to be taken on Iran, and quickly. I would suggest, regardless of what the UN Security Council states, that we--the US and her coalition partners--begin funding the dissident movement in Iran; essentially financing a possible coup. It is risky, and it is dangerous, but it may be the only hope the world has right now to fend off a looming nuclear holocaust. One that will be instigated by a madman.
Bunny ;)
The BBC reports that the talks between the EU-3 and Iran have caved in.
The discussions were called by Iran in a final bid to avoid possible UN action over its nuclear programme.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, will decide on Monday if action is needed.
Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accused the IAEA of being politically motivated and influenced by Western powers.
At Friday's talks, officials from the UK, France and Germany - the so-called EU3 - said they were there to listen to Iran, but they presented no new plans of their own.
A letter from the EU3 to Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, warned Iran earlier this week that any progress would be dependent on Iran stepping up co-operation with UN inspectors.
After the meeting, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said talks "were carried out in a constructive atmosphere but finally we were unable to reach agreement."
The EU and much of the international community want Iran to suspend all nuclear enrichment work, fearing it could eventually lead to arms production. Iran insists its only aim is civilian use.
Uh-huh, and I am Minnie Mouse. There is no solid evidence available for that claim, and more than enough to show precisely the opposite. Iran has cracked the IAEA seals on it's facilities, and demanded the cameras the IAEA installed be shut off. If Iran's goal is truly peaceful, and they have nothing to hide, why turn off the cameras? Prove it to the IAEA, and the UN Security Council that your aim truly is for a peaceful use of nuclear energy.
But we know different. We have watched this game be played out in the past. We watched it while the UN dawdled over Saddam Hussein and his WMD programs. The same sort of screwing around. The same "go-nowhere" negotiations. The same twiddling of thumbs by the UN and issuing resolution after resolution that Saddam ignored.
The same will happen with Iran. Russia and China are members of the security council, and have veto powers. I can assure everyone that France will not be the one to upset this stand-off; Chirac is shouting his head off in France that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. It is Russia and China that we have to worry about. They have a "brokeback diplomacy" sort of view with Iran; to them it is all business no matter what is traded.
China and Iran are close to closing a deal that would allow China to develop the Yadavaran oil field. Russia and Iran have business deals of their own, aside from the uranium enrichment deal the two have been working on.
That's not our only concern. We also worry about Iran's would-be partners in nuclear enrichment. The Russians have billions of dollars tied up in contracts with Iran, much of them in military weaponry. They've already built Iran a nuclear plant, in Bushehr. This deal just might be a backdoor to more business for Russia.
Only two months ago, Russia signed a $700 million deal with Iran to provide it with an air-defense missile system — the only possible use of which would be to shoot down U.S. or European planes in the event of an attack. Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation reports, "Rumors linger that Russia may still be willing to sell its powerful S-300 missile systems to Iran."
We're also reminded of the newly documented ties between Russia and Saddam's regime — ties that extended, apparently, to Russian generals and Spetznaz troops helping Iraq hide its weapons of mass destruction from U.S. and U.N. inspectors.
Would it not be prudent to suspect that a similar deal lay on the horizon should the UN Security Council issue a resolution for Iran to stop it's nuclear program? One that, like the one with Iraq, would have Russian Spetznaz moving Iran's secret WMDs before a possible invasion? Granted, should Iran become nuclear, the idea of an invasion seems highly unlikely, and a greater possibility occurs where we may have no choice but to use our own nuclear weapons, especially if Iran decides to follwo through with it's threat to wipe Israel off the map.
This issue is slowly reaching critical mass. Some serious steps need to be taken on Iran, and quickly. I would suggest, regardless of what the UN Security Council states, that we--the US and her coalition partners--begin funding the dissident movement in Iran; essentially financing a possible coup. It is risky, and it is dangerous, but it may be the only hope the world has right now to fend off a looming nuclear holocaust. One that will be instigated by a madman.
Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:39 PM
1 Comments:
I agree with what you post. There's a movement underway that we can live with Iran having the bomb. I believe spearheaded by the NYT's. A rogue nation or terrorists having the bomb has always been a threat and Iran is a threat with its leadership... The plants must be destroyed. I have a Brooklyn Bridge In AZ to sell anyone who believes that Iran use will be to provide power or the UN can effectively stop Iran. Rawiter
Post a Comment
<< Home