Iran given stark nuclear choice

[Janus]

Originally posted by BBC News
Iran has been given 30 days to return to the negotiating table or face isolation, foreign ministers from the US and five other major powers warned.
"Iran has a choice between isolation brought about through [uranium] enrichment" or a return to talks, Germany's foreign minister said.

His comments reinforced a deadline in a statement by the UN Security Council, which urged Iran to halt enrichment.

Iran has rejected the call, and insists its nuclear activities are peaceful.

However, the ministers at the talks in Berlin said the US, Russia, China and Europe remained intent on a "diplomatic solution" to the dispute.

The UK's Jack Straw warned sanctions could follow if Iran remained defiant, but Russia ruled out such a move.

'Miscalculated'

The meeting included the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council - the US, China, France, Russian and the UK - as well as Germany.
The foreign ministers were discussing what to do if Iran refused to drop its nuclear ambitions.

Their talks came a day after the UN Security Council finally approved a non-binding call on Iran to end uranium enrichment, after weeks of wrangling.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the meeting sent "a very strong signal to Iran that the international community is united".

The British foreign secretary said Iran had "miscalculated" by resuming its nuclear research activities.

"The onus is on Iran to show the international community that its programme is entirely for civil purposes and for no other," Mr Straw said.

When asked by reporters if the Council might pass a legally binding resolution if Iran did not comply, he said: "It can certainly include a resolution... and the possibility of measures after that."

Asked if such measures could include sanctions, he said: "It could do."

However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said his country remained opposed to such a move against the Islamic Republic.

The "sole solution" would come through the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), he said.

'Mistrust'

The 15-member Security Council unanimously approved the non-binding statement on Wednesday - one month after Iran's nuclear activities were reported to the Council by the IAEA.

The statement was the third version of a draft drawn up by France and the UK, which made significant concessions to Russia and China.

Moscow and Beijing, both allies of Iran, were concerned that Security Council involvement could lead to sanctions against Iran and wanted the IAEA to take the lead.

Iran was defiant. "We will not, definitely, suspend enrichment," its ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, said earlier on Thursday.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tehran was still open to talks on the issue with the IAEA, but that there was "mistrust" over negotiations with European nations.

He condemned the West's "unjustified propaganda", insisting that Iran's nuclear programme was peaceful.

[RaiseYourVoice]

The US got the plans for an attack already ready i guess, the only real interessting question is now how and if the UN will jusitify and attack on iran and what the attack will look like.

So IF iran does not give in i guess most likely what will happen is:

The UN will use sanctions against the iran and cut of its aid. (not all the economy because that would mean oil also. Iran though will change nothing about their nuclear program.

The UN does not agree on using UN troops against iran because russia and/or china will veto it... or france will because they have enough internal struggles.

The U.S. and another alliance of the willing will start bombarding the nuclear facilities in iran and set back the nuclear program a few years.

The system in Iran will be the same with just a little more hatred for the west in the whole middle east and maybe iran cuts of our oil supplies resulting in sky rocketing oil prices that will hurt our economy.

Since the US has hardly any resources left to attack iran with and bush is weakened in his own country there will be no ground based invasion in iran and we will go back to business as usual.... with a few hundred/thousand dead iranies....

[Enragé]

omfg they're doing it again!

supported by lies they are going to murder hundreds of thousands!

stupid motherfuckers

at least they'll be slaughtered

:blink:

no...wait

they wont

the brainwashed soldiers from ordinary families will....


[stating the obvious]fuck i really do hate capitalism [/stating the obvious]

[Dreckt]

I still think it would be a really bad move to attack Iran. The war would cost every dollar left in the American economy. Iran is too big, they have many more people than Iraq, their dedication to their country and leader is (last I heard) much stronger than the Iraqi.

Then the approval rating for the president would drop to like below zero in the US. If an attack is going to happen in any case it would have to be during the next president, and if that president is a Democrat and goes to war with Iran, then maybe people in the US will realize that both sides are closer to each other than previously believed.

[Kia]

he US got the plans for an attack already ready i guess, the only real interessting question is now how and if the UN will jusitify and attack on iran and what the attack will look like.

The USA probably does have attack plans for Iran...and every other country it dislikes. But, its highly unlikely that the USA &/Or UN anytime soon will launch an attack on Iran anytime soon. Iraq is currently a total mess in the US governments, and peoples eyes..and will probably take many more years of US troop occupation, high casualty losses, or full blown civil war for the US to withdraw completely. Dreckt is right about the US going to war with Iran being political suicide. That may be one of the few reasons the US hasnt used force on Iran yet. Democrats are much less likely to go to war, just out of the fact that it would be a republican idea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4859540.stm
Is the exact same link to the same page of news on the BBC, but updated.
Whats interesting is that the UN watchdog Chief, is saying that puting sanctions on Iran would be a "bad idea" & Iran is no a imminent threat. The UN council is so corrupt these days that theyre blatently ignoring their own advisors. Frankly, The permenant members of the UN security council need to be removed and authority and power spread evenly among UN members. Since there is no chance of this happening, we have to make sure that Germany, France, Russia, & China keep the rest of the crazy UN council members from destroying any single bit of international relations with the Middle East.

[Enragé]

they'll say that the reason the insurgency is still raging because of Iran
which couldnt be farther from the truth

[Dreckt]

This is a very interesting link on the economic situation around Iran:

http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

[Tekun]

I hope millions of their imperialist pawns get mowed down
And as a result, the US public rebels against or impeaches that stupid muthaphuker
However, I do fear that Iran will not be able to resist for much time with both Britain and the US engaged in military actions against it

[Cheung Mo]

Every problem in Iran can be blamed on the fact that those assholes Eisehnhower and Churchill overthrew Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh (a leftist, a nationalist, a secularist, and a democrat...No friend to either side of the Cold War) and replaced him with their bastard despot.

Iranians gravitated towards Islamism because it was the most powerful and most strident anti-Shah and anti-imperialist force in the country.

Islamism is an immoral, reactionary, and totalitarian ideology (as proven by the fact that both pro and anti-American Islamists have turned Afghanistan into a bigger clusterfuck than the Soviets ever could have...And this is coming from someone who can't fucking stand Brezhnev), but the reasons behind its rise to prominence in Iran are anything but.

[Severian]

The 5 security council members aren't even united on sanctions; the agreement between them is purely verbal.

[Dreckt]

Well, there are many things not right with Iran. In a documentary about women in Iran, a person said that the Iranian government flat out don't care about the apparent growing drug problem in the country. The reason is to "numb down" the people so that there won't be another revolution.

On the positive side, downloading music, movies and games from the internet is apparently legal in Iran - since it goes against America.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 08:50 PM

he US got the plans for an attack already ready i guess, the only real interessting question is now how and if the UN will jusitify and attack on iran and what the attack will look like.

The USA probably does have attack plans for Iran...and every other country it dislikes. But, its highly unlikely that the USA &/Or UN anytime soon will launch an attack on Iran anytime soon. Iraq is currently a total mess in the US governments, and peoples eyes..and will probably take many more years of US troop occupation, high casualty losses, or full blown civil war for the US to withdraw completely. Dreckt is right about the US going to war with Iran being political suicide. That may be one of the few reasons the US hasnt used force on Iran yet. Democrats are much less likely to go to war, just out of the fact that it would be a republican idea.

If you had read all of my comment i said an invasion with ground forces is not possible. a bomardment of the nuclear facilities is though.



Then the approval rating for the president would drop to like below zero in the US. If an attack is going to happen in any case it would have to be during the next president, and if that president is a Democrat and goes to war with Iran, then maybe people in the US will realize that both sides are closer to each other than previously believed.

americans sadly will not realize that within the next hundred years... they will just re-elect the republicans... or even forget about it within the 4 years of presidency.... indirect democray shit combined with propaganda media and uncritical population is not a likely ground for people realizing this....

[Dreckt]

If you had read all of my comment i said an invasion with ground forces is not possible. a bomardment of the nuclear facilities is though.

What I don't understand is why they don't use the CIA or something like it to change regime? They've done so in the past, so why not now?

[RaiseYourVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 06:33 PM

If you had read all of my comment i said an invasion with ground forces is not possible. a bomardment of the nuclear facilities is though.

What I don't understand is why they don't use the CIA or something like it to change regime? They've done so in the past, so why not now?
Well the iranian regime isnt that easy replacable... the mullahs, the president, the chief of armed forces all would have to be removed.

Even if they could do it the government not at last due to their propaganda have a quite solid support from a large part of the population. killing of the regime would result into a civil war, total chaos and maybe radioactive material falling into the hands of terrorists.

Not to mention that iran holds ~10% of the worlds oil reserves... which if cut of would lead to a rise in oil prices around the world.

[The Grey Blur]

How long till the bookies start taking bets on who/when the US are gonna attack next :lol:

[kingbee]

One thing I was thinking:

Iran wants nuclear weapons as a deterrent to invasion (and also for energy purposes).

The U.$ and the West does not want Iran to have nukes as they think he's a nutter and will use these nukes if neccesary.

Why don't Iran offer to give up the programme in return for energy and the guarantee from the West not to invade?

Everybody's happy! :D

[Cheung Mo]

Why should Iran trust America? (And why should anybody rational trust either of them?)

[kingbee]

Hmm. True.

I suppose it works the other way too: how would America trust Iran?!

I forgot about the small thing called trust...