||[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
|Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:56 am Post subject: Executive Summary News/Articles Update-January 28, 2006
Executive Summary News/Articles Update-January 28, 2006 The First Few Paragraph of Each Article and Source URL For Complete News/Articles Are Shown
Straw to press for action on Iran
Jack Straw is due to warn against Iran's resumption of its nuclear research programme, in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland.
BBC NEWS, Saturday, 28 January 2006
The UK foreign secretary has also held talks in Davos with the head of the UN's atomic watchdog, the IAEA.
The UK, Germany, France and the US want Iran to be referred to the United Nations Security Council for censure.
But IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei is indicating any decision should wait until he reports in March.
About 2,000 leading business executives and politicians from around the globe are attending the Davos meeting.
Mr Straw is expected to tell them that Iran's restarting of its nuclear research cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
He says the UK will continue to press for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council when the issue is debated at an emergency IAEA meeting next week.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.
The BBC's Jonathan Charles, in Davos, says there are signs that the UK's desire for immediate action, backed by France, Germany and America, is not shared by Mr ElBaradei.
"He's indicating any decision should wait until he has produced his report in March about whether Iran's activities really are peaceful or just a cover for the development of nuclear weapons," he said.
The United States Senate earlier passed a resolution unanimously condemning Iran's nuclear programme.
Mr Straw has previously told the BBC that Iran can be persuaded to co-operate over its nuclear programme only "by peaceful means", saying the situation there was unlike that in Iraq.
US Senate passes resolution condemning Iran
Fri Jan 27, Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Friday unanimously passed a resolution condemning Iran for its nuclear program and backing efforts to report it to the U.N. Security Council.
US should retain military threat on Iran: McCain
Fri Jan 27, 2006, By Evelyn Leopold
DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - The United States should keep the threat of using force against Iran as a last resort if it wanted leverage in the dispute over Tehran's nuclear program, U.S. Senator John McCain said on Friday.
McCain, a prominent member of U.S. President George W. Bush's Republican Party, told a panel at the World Economic Forum that Iran needed to be referred to the U.N. Security Council, even if no one knew whether sanctions would be imposed.
"We have to keep the military option as the last option but not take it off the table," said McCain. "Otherwise I am not sure how we have any significant leverage."
Bush's Iran Plan Echoes Kerry, Baffles Friends
January 27, 2006
New York Sun
President Bush's endorsement of a plan to end the nuclear standoff with Iran by giving the Islamic republic nuclear fuel for civilian use under close monitoring has left some of his supporters baffled. One cause for the chagrin is that the proposal, which is backed by Russia, essentially adopts a strategy advocated by Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent in the 2004 election, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.
UN chief asks US to give Iran reactors
U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei on Friday called on the United States to provide Iran with nuclear reactors and urged Tehran to declare a moratorium on enriching uranium for at least eight years.
ElBaradei said that amount of time would enable the country to earn the confidence of the international community that it was really interested in nuclear energy — not nuclear weapons.
Last edited by cyrus on Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:12 pm Post subject:
|At a debate in September, Mr. Kerry faulted Mr. Bush for not agreeing to engage the Iranians with such an offer. "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together," Mr. Kerry said. "The president did nothing."
From : Bush's Iran Plan Echoes Kerry, Baffles Friends
Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
January 27, 2006
QUESTION: Iran. I wanted to go back to a question we started in Nick's
briefing, and that is something I hadn't thought of until now, and that is: Is
accepting the Russian proposal or is even your -- what you know call limited
support for the Russian proposal, is that accepting that the work at Isfahan
that was begun under protest from you is a foregone conclusion that that is not
going to stop or be reversed?
MR. MCCORMACK: We have -- again, as Nick said in his answer to this question, I
think it was a couple of times, we expressed our support for the Russian
proposal. Is it the proposal that we might have written? I don't know. We have
made very clear that we don't think that because of Iran's past behavior that
they should be able to engage in conversion activities. You have to remember
under the EU-3 Paris Agreement, conversion activities were not allowed; the
Iranians had promised to suspend those activities. We think that that is
Now, in terms of the Russian proposal, it addresses what we believe is the most
critical part of the nuclear fuel cycle, and that is taking the UF-6, enriching
to a highly enriched uranium. That technology, that know-how, is the critical
pathway because it would allow a state to obtain what is one of the most
difficult parts of building a nuclear weapon and that is amassing the fissile
material. So while we think that it would be appropriate that Iran not engage
in conversion activities, we have supported the Russian proposal.
QUESTION: But it doesn't accept that you are -- that you're giving up on Iran.
I mean, isn't the U.S. perspective that Iran shouldn't even be able to get to
the point where it has something to send to Russia to convert?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, we have made it very clear that -- and the EU-3 in the
Paris Agreement has also agreed on this as well, that it would -- we would
prefer the optimal solution would be that Iran would not be able to engage in
those activities. That said, we have expressed support for the Russian proposal
which again, gets at the most critical pathway in our view. So while we support
the Russian proposal, the -- certainly the preference would be that Iran not be
able to engage in those conversion activities. All of this said, the Iranians
have yet to give any tangible indication that they are going to be -- that they
are serious about the Russian proposal and I think that the latest statements
from Mr. Larijani about the proposal. And I think every single day I read
something different coming from him and he's like a sailboat tacking in the
wind. One day he's for it, one day he has a problem with it. So this is just
more -- more evidence of Iran trying to gain the international system, trying
to avoid referral to the Security Council.
Briefing on London Conference on Afghanistan
Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
January 27, 2006
QUESTION: In your discussions with P-5 on Iran, are you going to be looking
more closely at the Russian proposal? Because the Iranians seem more interested
in that. Or will the focus still be on referring to the Security Council?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I think there's a clear focus for the dinner that
Secretary Rice will have with Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, the
foreign ministers of those countries, on Monday evening. Those countries met
ten days ago in London and it was agreed at that meeting, at the political
director level, that all of us felt that Iran should suspend its nuclear
activities. All of us believe that Iran should resume negotiations with either
the European Union or with Russia. All of us felt that Iran should meet its
commitments to the IAEA. And of course, Iran has done nothing of the kind. So
I'm quite sure that the meeting on Monday evening will focus on that question,
the fact that Iran is in arrears to the international community, that it's
violated its pledges to the European Union, that it's not in synch with its
IAEA commitments. And obviously the ministers will talk about that.
They'll talk about the IAEA Board of Governors vote on February 2nd. Secretary
Rice has said repeatedly this week that we believe that the Board of Governors
should vote to send the report on Iran from the September Board of Governors
meeting to the Security Council, and the Security Council should then become
seized by this issue. That's the American position. I think there's agreement
on those three major objectives that I listed at the beginning of the answer.
There's still further work to be done tactically among these six countries on
the tactics of how we use the IAEA Board of Governors vote, and of course then
what we do at the Security Council. But the clear view of the United States is
there should be a positive vote on February 2nd and there should be referral to
the Security Council. We believe it warrants that.
And it's interesting that you said that somehow Iran may be interested in the
Russian proposal. President Bush and Secretary Rice said in November publicly
that we found great interest -- we found great interest -- in the Russian
proposal. The Russian proposal has been very specific, as we understand it. It
is to obviate the need for any kind of sensitive fuel cycle activity to take
place on the territory of Iran but to ensure fuel supply for civil nuclear
power reactors in Iran itself. So it's an offshore fuel supply arrangement.
And the Iranians have had months to look at that proposal and they've never
embraced it. And the interesting thing about Mr. Larijani's travels -- and he's
been in Europe and he's been in Russia and he's been in China this week -- is
that he keeps saying Iran has a right and Iran intends to exercise the right to
have these sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities take place on the territory
of Iran. They've talked about -- they have recommended uranium conversion at
their plant at Isfahan, they have unilaterally broken the seals that the IAEA
placed on their facility at Natanz so they can engage in centrifuge research,
and they have talked about their right and their intention to proceed towards
All of those activities are fundamentally contradictory to the Russian
proposal. So when Mr. Larijani says we're interested in the Russian proposal,
it's a little hard to take that seriously when the Russian proposal would not
allow those activities to take place in the territory of Iran.
So I actually think the diplomacy in London at the foreign ministers meeting on
Monday is going to focus on the transgressions of the Iranian Government -- and
there's a great deal of unity in the international community about those
transgressions -- and try to see if we can have a consensus to move forward on
a tactical basis together to move the issue to the Security Council.
QUESTION: The United States has already made a major concession to Iran in
accepting, at least on its face, the Russian proposal and that is agreeing to
allow Iran to continue operating the Isfahan facility, uranium facility -- the
uranium hexafluoride facility -- which was supposed to have been shut down
under the agreement with the EU-3, yet they started it up last summer. The
Russian proposal is predicated on allowing that to continue. So hasn't the
United States, in effect, encouraged the Russians and the Iranians, in
particular, to continue looking for other concessions and, in particular, the
Iranians are looking for a concession on the centrifuge plant in Natanz, their
pilot plant, the 1,000-centrifuge pilot plant. They want to continue being able
to operate that. Why isn't -- why would you not expect the Russians, having the
United States already made the concession on Isfahan, to look to the United
States to make more concessions?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I don't accept the basis of your question. The United
States has not been party to any negotiations with the Government of Iran.
We've not had a single conversation with any official in the Government of Iran
about these negotiations. We have stood back from the negotiations. What
happened in 2005 is that the President and Secretary Rice announced in March of
2005 that we would do one thing: We would give our diplomatic support to the EU
negotiations. The EU countries have been the ones sitting and negotiating with
the Iranians and that we made our declaration that we would not object to
Iran's bid to begin its process of joining the WTO and that we would allow the
sale of civilian spare parts to Iran's aging airline fleet. That's what the
United States did in March of 2005.
Since then, what we've said is we're in favor of a diplomatic solution to the
problem, but we believe that Iran is in fundamental violation of the
commitments that it made in negotiations. We never made any concessions about
-- let me just finish my answer, because you asked a very serious question. We
never made any concessions about what was happening at Isfahan. We never said
we were happy about the resumption of uranium conversion. In fact, I'm very
sure, if you look at what Sean said that day -- whatever day that was, a couple
of months ago -- we criticized the resumption of uranium conversation at
Isfahan and we have said very clearly since then we don't believe that Iran
should engage in centrifuge research at Natanz. We certainly don't believe they
should have the ability to enrich and reprocess because that would give them
ability to produce fissile material which leads to a nuclear weapon.
Our objective is to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. And
all of our diplomatic efforts have been designed to do that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) by accepting the Russian proposal, the Russian proposal
is predicated on allowing Iran to continue operating Isfahan and then to take
the uranium hexafluoride gas from Isfahan and ship it to Russia for further
enrichment. So by accepting the Russian proposal, you have essentially accepted
to continue the operation of Isfahan.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: The United States has said that we find the Russian
proposal to be interesting and it might be a good way to proceed with
negotiations. We've never said that we accept, you know, every detail in that
proposal. Our statements have been quite general. But they've been clear. But
they've been clear.
And what's behind the U.S. statements made by our leadership in November is
that we don't believe that Iran should have the ability to exercise any process
along the nuclear fuel cycle inside Iran itself. That's a fairly tough position
and that's been a consistent position of our government.
And so yes, we want the Iranians to negotiate, whether it's with the EU-3 or
Russia or any other country, on a serious basis; and we've said that we believe
that this kind or proposal has promise, but we've never blessed every article
of the proposals. I think if you ask the Russian Government, they'd tell you
the same thing.
And by the way, we respect the fact that this has been a complicated diplomatic
scenario, but we don't see Iran responding to the Russian proposal, to the
European proposal or to any other proposal. They seem to be obfuscating.
QUESTION: When the President --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the U.S. and Iran and what you said about the London
conference even on Afghanistan, why is the position of the Bush Administration
so antagonistic to even -- I mean, you give us a 100 percent guarantee that
there won't be any contact whatever.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: There won't.
QUESTION: And my question is: Why is that? And perhaps, given Iran's positions
publicly stated and the fact that you're on a collision course with them, why
not take the possibility that perhaps an Iranian delegate in London might have
something interesting to say?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Charlie, it's been the policy of every American
administration since President Reagan not to have diplomatic relations with the
Iranian Government, so this administration has been very consistent with all of
its predecessors, going back to 1980.
QUESTION: I'm not talking diplomatic relations.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: And as you know, as you know, in legal channels and
through the Swiss protecting power, there have been contacts from time to time
over the last 25 years. But in an environment where the new Iranian President
has called for the destruction of Israel, has denied that the Holocaust
happened as a historical fact, has put Iran on a more radical course on its
nuclear policy, has continued Iranian support for terrorism, there is not a lot
to talk about.
What we want to do is create an international environment where a strong
coalition of countries, including the ones meeting on Monday evening, get
together and send one signal to Iran: Stop support for terrorism in the Middle
East and stop your nuclear activities.
QUESTION: Well, the --
QUESTION: But not the --
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: And so that message is not hard for the Iranians to
understand and Sean communicates it, any number of us can communicate it to
them every day through --
QUESTION: Are you --
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: -- through press briefings like this.
MR. MCCORMACK: I think we have time for one last -- one last question.
QUESTION: Are you confident then that you will have a vote on referral and that
you will win that vote?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I think there's every reason to believe there's going to
be a vote on February 2nd and there's already a majority of countries assembled
to vote positively.
Comments: Before I comment on the article comparing Kerry's statement above to the current state of play with the Russian proposal, let me just say that I think El Baradai's mandate at the IAEA is so narrow-focused he can't see the woods for the trees in the way. In other words, to propose that we provide Nuclear power plants is completely oblivious to reality in context to US/Iranian affairs.
As for the articles presumption that Bush is some how adopting Kerry's stance, this is not the case in reality...this is not a "test" (unless of course one wanted to think of the IRI as a "test case for UN reform" via UN Security council referal impending this week.)
In fact what the president has done is allow others to come to grips with the fact that the IRI is not interested in negotiations, nor external fuel production as Kerry proposed.
Mr. Bush is enough of a diplomat to not rub the EU and Russia's nose in it as those negotiations fail to produce results....because they have....the entire international community is fed up with the IRI at this point because of him allowing others all the rope they need to prove things to themselves.
Mr. Bush was willing to see if these things would somehow work to resolve the problem, while knowing that they stood a thousand to one chance of success, given the track record of the IRI.
Now, as for Kerry's 2004 comment above, I gave him a little feedback on it at the time, and I stand by it now.
To Sen. John F. Kerry,
My suggestion to you sir, is to review the letters I sent you and other members after 9/11, while you were on the Senate Foreign Relations committe.
There's a reason why Robert Finn, former US ambassador to Afghanistan thanked me for my "keen interest in foreign affairs", after reading them.
I also suggest you read the following, and reflect opon it.
To: Campaign Staff, Ken Mehlman, Director, Sen. Pete Dominici New Mexico Campaign Chair
After reviewing some of the post foreign policy debate speeches by president Bush, It seems there are a few things that are being neglected in pointing out the vast difference in foreign policy doctrine between the candidates. I hope the following will serve to help all Americans understand exactly what the stakes are:
As a "discerning Democrat"-(as the president put it), and being totally appalled by Sen. Kerry's apparent lack of factual knowledge with regards to foreign policy...this despite his time spent on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, I'd like to illuminate the doctrine Sen. Kerry expouses.
Here's how the "global test" might look....
Preeminent among those precepts of doctrine is his statement in regards to Iran that, "I believe we could have done better. I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes."
1. We've been putting pressure on Russia for years to deny Iran the means to complete the nuclear fuel cycle, as there is no evidence that Iran will abide by any commitments what-so-ever. And tracking it is problematic at best. By the time we found out whether it was for peaceful purposes or not(which anyone with a brain knows it isn't)it would be too late to do anything about it, militarily, or diplomaticly, as their reactor would already be on-line, and would be an environmental disaster if destroyed while opperational.
2. Sen. Kerry seems to have forgotten that Iran is a long term state sponsor of terrorism.
3. The US has a well known and long standing policy of not negotiating or doing buisiness with terrorists, or their supporters under any circumstances. (hense the many US sanctions on Iran that have been in place for years)Sen. Kerry ommitted this fact to the American public.
I can only imagine what must have gone through the Russian foreign minister's mind when he heard Sen. Kerry's statement to this effect, not only as a complete reversal of long-standing US policy, but directly under-cutting the Russian's deal with the Iranians, even if this deal is currently on "hold" thanks to much US diplomatic effort warning them of the dangers of doing so. It's just bound to make them wonder "what up with this?"
As well, failing to recognise the Russians for the vast efforts that have ensued under the Nunn/Lugar act to secure their nuclear material as well as reactor fuel in eastern Europe, he instead acuses them of leaving this material unguarded today.
This may have been the case prior to 9/11, but he fails to mention the admin. effort to secure it, by increasing funding to ensure this.
And I don't think the Russians would take too kindly to being called lax in their efforts, as our partner in these efforts.
5. If I were a Iranian supported terrorist, I'd be jumping for joy at the thought of the Sen.'s successful bid for Commander in Chief, as I'd know I'd have a sure source of nuclear material to build a bomb, and return it back to the sender with a bang.
God knows, that would be exactly the result of such an idiotic plan.
It seems his "doctrine" is "If you give the terrorists and proliferant nations exactly what they want, they'll stop being terrorists and proliferant nations of WMD."
And he belittles the president for being optimistic about the level of terrorism in Iraq!
His bi-lateral approach to dealing with North Korea's nuclear ambitions have already been opposed by the Chinese, and the senator's statement makes a mockery of all the nations diplomacy to this point within the 6 party framework.
If I were the foreign minister of any of those nations that stand with us to resolve this issue, I'd think that not only would my efforts have been for nought were he elected, but that my interests and voice on the issue would be deemed irrelevant by this would-be president.
The hypocritical statement supporting a go-it-alone policy, after having falsly accused this admin. of doing the same in Iraq aside, I'd have to seriously question the Senator's commitment to our allies, and the agreements and cooperation with respect to these issues we see in place today. Whether I was a citizen of the US, or a member of an allied foreign government.
It is one thing to belittle other government's contribution and efforts in the global war on terror and counter- proliferation, it is altogether another matter far more serious, to compromise this country's consistancy and partnerships in these efforts.
In a nutshell, his doctrine amounts to nothing less than aiding and abetting the terrorist's goals of aquiring nuclear material, and providing aid and comfort by offering them hope to that effect.
Regardless of any other statements he made to the contrary, these statements on policy should not be ignored for they are a reflection of his "vision" for the future.
The Senator better get his eyes checked, so he can have at least one good eye to see the truth, and another to see his own folly.
As a life-long Democrat, and a member of one of America's original Nuclear Families (granddad helped Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project)
John Kerry has my vote of no-confidence to be fit as president, commander in chief, or senator for that matter.
Perhaps the first lady, being an ex-librarian, could locate the book "Inside Box 1663" my grandmother wrote about the Manhattan Project. I gave a copy to Bill Clinton at his last campaign stop before he was first elected, with the following written on the flyleaf;
" This is a slice of times past, to give perspective on the present, so that in the future we can eliminate the threat of nuclear war. The greatest threat we face today is that terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons."
The former president wrote me a thank you letter stating that he "looked forward to reviewing it."
It's either still in the Whitehouse, or a part of his library in Little Rock.
Sen. Kerry may have written a book a few years ago, but I have yet to see anything pre-dating my words of advice given to Bill Clinton.
I have given this Admin. permission years ago to quote me if they see fit, and I can cite examples where I believe they have made use of my letters to them. Sen. Kerry not only does not have my permission(even though he's recieved a few letters as well as a member of the Senate foreign Relations committee) to take my words for his own, he in fact would make a mockery of them, now and were he to become president.
In any case, the question any intelligent Iranian must ask themselves is,
"Regardless of our right to a peaceful persuit of atomic power in a post-regime Iran, do we need it, and are we willing to risk having a Persian Chernobyl in our earthquake prone nation?"
I qualify the "right" above as to be none at all under a terrorist regime, sponsoring terror, intent on wiping countries off the map.
The people though do, once they have a more rational government that respects life, global commitments, and the people's will.
Sorry for the long post You'all, but I had to set the record strait...once and for all.
Oh yeah, Cyrus, you kind of got on my case recently for getting into it with other members of this forum "every few weeks" , well I just have one thing to say....It doesn't matter who you are, a presidential candidate, or an impatient patriot, or the president himself for that matter....I call things as I see it...period.
Most appreciate my efforts, if not the honesty, and the track record of accuracy.
||All times are GMT - 4 Hours
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group