[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [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.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

U.S. is studying military strike options on Iran
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:30 am    Post subject: Briefing on the Iran Nuclear Issue Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

This will help clarify a few of the above reports.

Oppie

--------------



Briefing on the Iran Nuclear Issue

R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; Robert
Joseph, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security


Washington, DC
April 21, 2006

(11:45 a.m. EDT)

MR. ERELI: Welcome, everybody, to this special briefing with Under Secretary of
State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns and Under Secretary of State for
Arms Control and International Security Bob Joseph. Both officials have just
returned from trips abroad on the issue of Iran's nuclear program. They're here
to tell you about those visits and give you an update on where we are on our
diplomacy on this. We'll begin with Under Secretary Burns and then go to Under
Secretary Joseph. I'd ask you to keep your questions very short because the
gentlemen have to leave in about 25 minutes.

Thank you.

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Good morning. Nice to see all of you. Let me just tell
you about a trip that I made to Moscow this week where I represented the United
States at talks among the P-5 countries and Germany, so that was Russia, China,
Britain, France and Germany, one in the series of talks we've had at the
political director level but also at the ministerial level about how to isolate
Iran and how to pressure Iran, place pressure on Iran, to put its nuclear
programs into suspension and to return to negotiations, which is the short-term
objective here. We also had meetings of the G-8 in Moscow and there's no
question now in our mind that Iran is probably now the leading issue to be
discussed when the G-8 foreign ministers get together at the end of June and
when our leaders get together in St. Petersburg in the middle of July.

I was struck in the two days of meetings that I had both with the Perm 5 as
well as with the G-8 countries, I was struck by how much the atmosphere has
changed. As for you know, for the last year the United States has been
supporting the EU negotiating efforts and we've also been very supportive of
the Russian efforts to try to get -- or the Russian proposal that's been made
to try to get Iran to return to its senses and to return to a rational
discussion with the international community about its very obvious attempt to
create a nuclear weapons capability for itself.

For many months over the past year, countries were not willing to entertain the
idea of sanctions. And for many months, countries were not willing to think
about concerted action in the Security Council that would effectively block
Iran and then push it back diplomatically so that it could not achieve its
purposes. And I think the atmosphere has changed. It's changed because you've
seen over the last four months Iran take a series of steps -- the January steps
to take the seals off, but also the steps last week where they made this big
public show of going forward to enrichment and then they predicted -- they said
what they'd be doing throughout the rest of the year to take that enrichment
program forward.

Under Secretary Joseph will describe to you our view of that, but
diplomatically the consequence of it was that in all of our discussions each
country, including Russia and China, said it is their policy that Iran should
not have nuclear weapons. Each country said that we all ought to act now
collectively to ensure that we speak with one voice and take one series of
actions designed to isolate the Iranians and, if necessary, to think about
punitive diplomatic, economic measures for Iran to stop its current efforts.
And I was struck by the change in atmosphere and, if you will, the sense of
urgency as we think about the actions in the Security Council in May and June
to make sure that we are operating together.

We all agreed that while we're willing to support efforts to see civil nuclear
power made available to the Iranian people, none of us are willing to see a
nuclear weapons capability produced. And for the first time, all countries said
that action had to be considered. Now, the majority of countries in the room
said that they were already considering sanctions of a collective or individual
nature. You've seen the announcement by the European Union that they are
considering a specific list of sanctions. You know that the United States,
which has had sanctions in place for 26 years, is also willing to support these
efforts. And if there's any other way that we could possibly sanction Iran, we
would entertain that possibility.

And I can't speak and I won't speak for the other countries in the room, but
there was an agreement that we now had to think specifically about how to
translate our agreement on action into something specific at the UN Security
Council. We did not agree on the specific tactical way forward, but I think
what you'll see in the next couple of weeks is a very intensive diplomatic
effort among the P-5 countries to think together about how we can place this
kind of pressure on Iran.

There'll be meetings in the first week of May of the P-5 political directors in
Europe to continue the talks that we had this week. There will certainly be an
effort made in the Security Council in the beginning of May to introduce
probably a Chapter 7 resolution that would require Iran to come back into
suspension regarding its nuclear activities. And I think you'll see at a
variety of levels, this issue come to the fore as one of the major
international negotiating efforts. There's no question about that.

We think it's time for countries to use their leverage with Iran. We think it's
time for countries to use their leverage. And therefore, we think it's
important that countries prohibit the use -- the export of dual-use
technologies that Iran can make use of in constructing its nuclear program. We
think it's very important that countries like Russia, for instance, freeze any
arms sales planned for Iran. Russia announced in December 2005 a sale of Tor
anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. We hope and we trust that that deal will not go
forward because this is not time for business as usual with the Iranian
Government.

So we think it's time for countries to use their leverage individually and we
think it's time for countries to band together collectively to make the same
effort. And that's a very important point that was just -- that I discussed and
other members discussed with the P-5 as well as the G-8. I think you'll see,
two different groups dealing with this issue of Iran. One will be the P-5 and
the Security Council and the second will be the G-8 in the way that I have
described.

One final point. The discussion now internationally is even broader in terms of
our concerns about Iran than the nuclear issue. A number of countries in the
P-5 and G-8 spoke up against Iran's leading support for terrorism in the Middle
East, as well as a concern about its more aggressive policy in the region, as
well as concern about the human rights situation inside Iran.

So what the United States Government has been trying to do is we've now got a
fully developed comprehensive policy towards Iran which focuses on the nuclear
issue, but also on the counterterrorism problem, also on the effort to try to
promote democracy and human rights inside Iran, as well as work with countries
in the region of the Middle East to see if we can't altogether send a signal to
Iran that its current behavior is quite unacceptable.

That's what I wanted to say in terms of opening remarks. I think Under
Secretary Joseph has some as well to offer and then both of us will be happy to
answer your questions.

UNDER SECRETARY JOSEPH: Good morning. Let me just say a few words about what is
going on on the ground in Iran with regard to its nuclear activities and also a
few observations about the visit that I made to the Gulf. I returned last
Friday, having visited the Gulf states, including Bahrain and the UAE, Oman,
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and then on the way home, Egypt.

First, in terms of activities on the ground in Iran, it's fair to say, I
believe, that the Iranians have put both feet on the accelerator. They're
moving very quickly to establish new realities on the ground associated with
their nuclear program. You're all aware, I think, of the announcements that
were made by the Iranian leadership on the 11th of April. The claims that were
made in those announcements have yet to be confirmed, but for the most part we
see little reason to doubt them.

The Iranians claim that they had converted enough uranium for 110 tons of UF-6,
UF-6 being the feed material for centrifuges. This is enough material for more
than 10 weapons. The Iranians have said that they actually produced enriched
uranium to 3.5 percent. If you can produce to 3.5 percent, you're well on your
way to producing enriched uranium at a much higher content, including weapons
grade material.

Perhaps most disturbing, at least in my calculation, is the announcement that
they are operating a centrifuge cascade consisting of 164 centrifuges. Now, I'm
a political scientist, not a nuclear physicist, but every nuclear physicist
that I have talked to in the past has always suggested that 164 is a key
number, because once you're able to operate, over a sustained period of time,
164 centrifuges in cascade and feed into that this material, this UF-6 that I
talked about, you're well on your way to an industrial scale capability in
terms of the production of enriched uranium.

In the context of Iranian plans, the Iranian Government also announced that
they intended to have 3,000 centrifuges installed at Natanz by the end of the
year. Three thousand centrifuges is much more than one needs to produce enough
enriched uranium, if properly configured, for more than one nuclear weapon a
year. And they also said that they intended to move to 50,000 or more
centrifuges at Natanz in terms of their long-term goals.

You also may have read some of the recent press on the claim by the Iranian
President that they're moving with research and development on the next
generation of centrifuge, the P-2 centrifuge, which, according to Iranian
claims, is four times as efficient as the P-1.

I think this clearly gives you an idea of what the Iranian goals are in this
context. And I think you have to look at these claims in the context of
continued unwillingness by Iran to cooperate with the IAEA in addressing the
major outstanding questions that have been raised time and time again by Dr.
ElBaradei and by the IAEA inspectors in reports to the Board of Governors.

These questions deal with the history of the centrifuges, including the P-2s.
They deal with indications of weaponization by Iran. And they also, of course,
deal with the call by the entire Board and now by the Security Council to have
Iran suspend its enrichment-related activities and also to stop its move to
acquire a heavy water research reactor that would be configured to produce
plutonium, the other fissile material that is appropriate for nuclear weapons.

Iran has clearly demonstrated that it is not willing to cooperate and that it
is determined, despite calls for compromise and despite calls for negotiation,
determined to move forward in complete defiance of the international community.

Just a few words on my trip to the Gulf. The purpose was to consult with the
Gulf countries about the threat from Iran and what we might be able to do
together. We discussed a number of counter-proliferation initiatives that we
might be able to take. We talked about working in the context of the
Proliferation Security Initiative, an initiative that now involves over 70
countries who are committed to stopping the trade in proliferation materials.
We talked about how that could be best applied to Iran to stop the transfer of
sensitive materials and technologies associated with their WMD and missile
programs. That initiative has already had an impact on Iranian programs and we
intend to use that as a tool to achieve even greater effect.

We talked about financial measures, what we can do together to disrupt the
proliferation activities by taking certain measures in the financial area, in
terms of banking transactions or closing front companies, the type of actions
that can have an effect on Iran's ability to acquire more technology and
expertise from the outside.

And we also talked about other defensive measures that we might be able to
pursue together, including greater cooperation on missile defense, as one
example. Iran has the largest ballistic missile offensive capability and it's a
capability that's growing significantly. And we talked about the prospect for
working together to provide a defense against that mode of delivery.

We also talked about the prospect for training and exercising in the area of
chemical and biological defense. Remember that Iran is not only pursuing a
nuclear weapons capability, but is assessed to have a biological and chemical
offensive program as well.

These efforts, these defensive measures that I have mentioned, are intended to
reinforce the prospects for the success of our diplomacy in New York and Vienna
and elsewhere. They are not in competition, but they are reinforcing. Let me
stop there and we'll take questions.

MR. ERELI: Peter.

QUESTION: I have one question for Under Secretary Burns and one for Under
Secretary Joseph. Nick, we got a week to go before April 28th. The Russians,
for one, are saying that they're not going to apply sanctions because they see
no proof that Iran is heading towards a nuclear weapon, so it seems like that
international consensus is not as solid as you might suggest. What do you think
the prospects are after April 28th?

And Under Secretary Joseph, given all the data that you've given us, what is
the latest estimate on how close Iran is to a nuclear bomb or to that famous
point of no return?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: It's always interesting to match what you hear privately
in negotiations versus what people say publicly. The message privately was that
we do not have an agreement yet among the P-5 about the specific tactic that
all of us should embrace at the Security Council, but we do have the following
agreement: that after Mr. ElBaradei -- Dr. ElBaradei reports to the Security
Council and the IAEA on April 28th -- and there's only one thing he can really
report, and that is that Iran is not in compliance with the terms of the
presidential statement issued by the Security Council. After last week's
announcement, Iran has flown by the red lines, flown over the red lines
established by the UN Security Council. So assuming a negative report, which we
do, the commitment that all of us have together is that we're going to meet on
May 2nd in Paris, the P-5 political directors, and we will try to determine
what collective action we should take together -- collective action together in
the Security Council -- and try to agree on a series of measures in the
Security Council designed to send a very strong signal to the Iranians that
they are out of line.

Now, I don't want to mislead you here. Russia and China have not agreed to what
that specific action should be. But they said to us in private that they
believe that there should be some kind of effort made by the Security Council
beyond where we've been. And where we've been is we've been offering these
resolutions and presidential statements. It's now time for some type of action
to be taken because what we hear is it's not in the -- the Russians and Chinese
tell us they don't want to have -- see Iran have a nuclear weapon. They
understand that Iran has to be now strongly encouraged to pull back from where
it is.

So the diplomacy, the trick, the challenge of a diplomacy in the next several
weeks, will be to try to agree on that specific action. You know where we're
coming from. It's time for countries to use their leverage and use their
influence. And words sometimes just aren't sufficient in diplomacy; they have
to be combined with action. I'm talking about diplomatic action. There are a
lot of countries that trade with Iran that have billion dollar trade relations
and they ought to begin to rethink those commercial trade relationships. There
are a lot of countries that allow the export of dual-use technologies and the
position of the United States is that that should be prohibited. All countries
should refrain from military sales and arms sales and we pressed that issue the
other day and we'll continue to press that issue.

One last thing. The diplomacy here is very challenging. It is likely to extend
sometime into the future. We're not going to see in the next week or two any
kind of a breakthrough, but we are seeing something very significant. A year
ago today, there was no international coalition designed to force Iran off its
nuclear weapons track and there is now. And it includes the United States and
Canada and all the European countries and Japan and Australia and India and
Brazil, all the countries, and Russia and China, that have voted to rebuke
Iran.

Now you have two groups, the G-8 and the P-5, that are saying -- that have
committed to work on a multilateral basis to send this signal to Iran. So I
can't predict where the Security Council will be a month from today. But my
sense is that the Iranians have miscalculated again, that this high-profile
announcement last week with the President of Iran and holding up, you know, the
product of what they'd done in the enrichment process has backfired on them. I
sensed real concern on the part of Russia and China as to what the Iranians are
up to. Now let's see if we can translate that into effective action at the
Security Council to preserve the credibility of the Security Council, which is
what is at stake here.

UNDER SECRETARY JOSEPH: Let me just say that on my visit to the Gulf, the same
concern that Nick just described was very apparent in all of the countries that
I visited.

With regard to the question of when Iran might have a nuclear weapons
capability, the DNI, Ambassador Negroponte, has spoken to that. I would just
say that with regard to the question of the point of no return, there are
different answers to that. Some will say that the point of no return is when
Iran has produced enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Others might
argue that it's the point in which they have successfully weaponized this.
There is an earlier point of no return, and that is when Iran has acquired the
confidence and the capability of running centrifuges over a sustained period of
time, allowing it to produce enrichment uranium. And again, the key point there
has always in the past been the 164-cascade centrifuge. So the answer I would
give you is we are very close to that point of no return. And I think that's a
view that was shared -- that is shared by many others.

MR. ERELI: John.

QUESTION: How do we know if we can believe the statements that are coming out
of Iran and that their claims are -- how do we know that they're not
exaggerating and how much confidence do we really have in our intelligence on
Iran, any more than we had with Iraq?

UNDER SECRETARY JOSEPH: The IAEA is in the process of taking samples and will,
I think in time, be able to confirm the claims that have been made.

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Can I also -- can I also just add to that it's -- no one
is trying to -- as we arrange our diplomacy, there's a clear separation between
dealing with Iran and what happened with Iraq in 2002 and '3. One of the
remarkable aspects of the diplomacy concerning Iran is not a single country of
which I'm aware believes that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
Everyone assumes -- the whole basis of what's happening in the Security Council
is that Iran is trying to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. And now we have
this extraordinary situation where for a couple of years the Iranians told the
IAEA we're not engaged in P-2 centrifuge research and then the President of
Iran last week said we are engaged in P-2 centrifuge research.

So the inconsistency, I would say the covering up of the reality and the facts
by the Government of Iran, is quite profound here. And what's happening now is
that you had the Iranians just a couple of months ago telling the international
press we're not going to engage in enrichment and we're not going to go to 164.
Last week, they said they'd go to 3,000 centrifuges in research by the end of
this year. So we're just judging Iran on what it's saying it's doing. It's
crossing every international red line, which has produced this movement against
and back -- I think backlash against Iraq -- Iran, excuse me.

QUESTION: In your opening statement, you mentioned actions in the Security
Council in May and June. Should we infer from that that there's going to be
some sort of 30-day trigger in May and what happens in June if the Iranians
continue to be unresponsive?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: The aggrieved party here are the three European
countries who for three years have been negotiating with the Iranians. They had
their negotiations summarily and unilaterally disrupted by the Iranians last
year. So I expect that those European countries, led by Britain and France, the
two permanent members of the Security Council from Europe, that they'll come
forward likely with a Chapter 7 resolution in the early part of May. I think
that that diplomacy -- you all know about diplomacy in New York -- it's
iterative, it's sometimes incremental, and so it's like to take a little bit of
time to work through the debate and the negotiations. And it may be that there
are several avenues that are pursued in the Security Council designed to
isolate and put some pressure on the Iranians. And we still need to work out
with the Europeans over the next week or so exactly what they will put forward,
and we'll be working with the Russians and Chinese as well. Therefore, that's
the reason for the May 2nd meeting in Paris and many other subsequent meetings.
You're going to see a lot of activity at many levels of government here.

MR. ERELI: James.

QUESTION: One for each of you.

MR. ERELI: Just one question.

QUESTION: Okay. Secretary Burns, you mentioned that you pressed the point with
the Russians very recently about these anti-aircraft sales. What was the
response you got and how optimistic are you that you'll be able to prevent that
sale from going through?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I think you saw some of the -- a part of the response
yesterday when the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman said that they intended
to go forward with these arms sales. It just doesn't stand to reason that
Russia would continue with arms sales, particularly of the type envisioned, Tor
missiles, to Iran. Iran is a country that is violating every international
agreement it's made on the nuclear issue, both with the IAEA and now with the
Security Council. It's not complying with the statements of the Security
Council. We know what it's doing in terms of its now more aggressive policy in
its own region. So we'll continue to work at it. We felt it was important to
press the issue. We'll continue to press the issue.

QUESTION: Following up on that, related to sanctions, the United States seems
to feel that absent a Security Council -- a unified Security Council action,
that all the countries, including the Europeans, should have their own
sanctions ready to go. But the European -- this is something that the Europeans
indicate they strongly disagree on, that only a collective Security Council
action is going to be effective. They don't think that kind of thing would be
effective. Is there a disagreement, a difference of views here between us and
our European allies?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Steve, I don't think so. We, the United States, have
committed ourselves to this very intensive process in the Security Council and
we understand that for many countries, given the ways their laws work and
relations with parliaments, that the force of a Security Council resolution,
say a Chapter 7 resolution, is sometimes necessary -- the reality of it --
before they can take individual action. So we understand that and we have been
now, for the last year, supporting the EU effort. And the reason for my trip to
Moscow this week was to commit the United States to a diplomatic process in New
York in a very intensive way.

But one of the points that Secretary Rice has made and that a number of others
of us have made is that this issue is too important to be hung up for months or
years in the Security Council. We are dedicating ourselves to the Security
Council process and you'll see the United States be as actively engaged as
anybody; but if the Security Council cannot act over a reasonable period of
time, then there will be an opportunity for groups of countries to organize
themselves together for the purpose of isolating the Iranians diplomatically
and economically.

So it's not beyond the realm of the possible that, at some point in the future,
a group of countries could get together, if the Security Council is not able to
act, to take collective economic action or a collective action on sanctions.
That's important because those that might prevent the Security Council from
acting effectively need to understand that the international community has to
find a way and will find a way to express our displeasure with the Iranians.

MR. ERELI: Last question to Anne.

QUESTION: It sounds as if you're already sort of pursuing that second track in
parallel with the Security Council. I mean, you went to Europe and to Moscow,
in part, to talk to the Europeans about sanctions they could raise or, you
know, asset forfeiture and that sort of thing that would be country-specific
and apart from the Security Council. And now you're talking about stopping arms
sales and the weighing of other countries' individual leverage.

Which one do you think has the greater likelihood of ultimate success? And do
you undermine the Security Council process by talking about the other things at
the same time?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: No, we're just talking about the reality of how the
world works and diplomacy works. There's never, I think, been any issue over
the last 40 or 50 years that's been exclusively in the domain of the Security
Council or one channel. You've got to work through a variety of channels. But
let me say this. We are devoted and dedicated to making the Security Council
process effective. We're putting an enormous amount of energy and a lot of
resources into thinking through how the Security Council can be effective.

So we haven't given up on diplomacy. We have not given up on the Security
Council. And the largest part of our effort is going to be through the Security
Council. I'm just suggesting what Secretary Rice has suggested and others have,
that it's very important that we have a number of avenues through which we can
pursue action -- diplomatic, economic action against Iran. And the United
States is not alone in saying this. The European Union announced 10 days ago
they are considering a basket of sanctions. Among the efforts being talked
about internationally, behind closed doors and also publicly, are targeted
sanctions against the Iranian leadership to make it impossible for them to
travel, visa sanctions, prohibition on export of dual-use technologies that can
serve their nuclear industry, and other measures like that.

And so it's very important that the Security Council succeed and the United
States will do everything in its power to help the Security Council succeed.
But obviously, in the way that the world works, countries have a multiplicity
of relationships with Iran -- we don't, but many other countries do -- and they
ought to be using that leverage, whether it's through the Security Council or
outside the Security Council. And it's also important for countries to know
that if, for any reason, the Security Council can't succeed, there will be an
effort made and there are avenues available to us to apply the kind of pressure
that we need to apply.

MR. ERELI: Thank you very much. Do you have anything to add, Bob?

UNDER SECRETARY JOSEPH: I would just add that this is likely the greatest
strategic threat that we face as a nation and that faces the international
community. A nuclear-armed Iran is something that we simply cannot tolerate and
this is a sense that is shared very widely by most states. A nuclear-armed Iran
would represent, I think, a direct threat not only to us and not only to the
countries in the region, but to the entire nuclear nonproliferation regime. It
would represent a threat to stability in the region, because a nuclear-armed
Iran, I believe, would be emboldened to take even more aggressive actions
through the use of terrorism and other means. One can also contemplate the
proliferation consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran.

We need to use every tool at our disposal. Diplomacy is key. Our economic
tools, our intelligence tools, every tool that we have needs to be brought to
bear against this threat. Thank you.

MR. ERELI: A couple more. Elise.

QUESTION: There's been a lot of speculation over the last week that the U.S. is
looking to talk to Iran beyond the narrow talks on Iraq -- talk to Iran beyond
the narrow confines of Iraq. There has been reports that a Mr. -- an Iranian
official, Mr. Nahavandian, was in town looking to meet with U.S. officials and
there were also reports that the U.S. is using its longtime intermediary, Mr.
Ghorbanifar. So could you speak to these reports? Is there anything to it? Is
the U.S. looking to have any direct negotiations with Iran on the nuclear
issue?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: There's nothing to those reports. The Iranian gentleman
in question may have been wandering around Washington, but I am absolutely sure
he did not have any conversations with any American Government officials and
that we weren't seeking those conversations. He apparently is a green card
holder, so he got himself into the United States. This is an issue for DHS now
to handle and DHS is, and I'd direct your questions there. But he did not have
discussions with American Government officials and we would not have met with
him, had he knocked on the door of the State Department.

There are no discussions underway of the type that you have talked about. As
you know, we do not have -- we are not talking to the Iranians directly about
this nuclear issue. We're not part of the negotiations with them. When I was in
Moscow, an Iranian delegation showed up and they met with the Europeans and
Russians directly after our meeting, but I was not there and I was never
intended to be there.

The only conversations we've had with the Iranians were a couple of weeks ago
and we told you about this when -- after the earthquake, when I called the
Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Zarif, to offer, on behalf of our
government, humanitarian assistance. And he called me back the next day with
the answer that the Iranian Government was very appreciative of the offer, but
they felt they could handle that particular natural disaster on their own.
That's the extent of it, so there are no discussions underway.

QUESTION: No discussions with Mr. Ghorbanifar either?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: No, no.

MR. ERELI: Charlie.

QUESTION: Nick, you also met in Moscow with the Chinese -- your counterpart.
Can you -- and he had just come from Tehran. Can you bring us up to date on
what he might have reported to you about any thinking in Tehran, aside from
what we've seen Iranian officials say? Is there anything else he offered you?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Charlie, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to
speak on behalf of the Chinese Government about what they said, but let me just
say that Assistant Minister Qui Tyankai came to Moscow after his trip to
Tehran, where he had meetings with Dr. Larijani and others, and we understand
that the Chinese delivered a fairly stiff message to the Iranian leadership
last weekend. And we certainly appreciate the Chinese position to be that China
does not wish Iran to have nuclear weapons, that China is very disturbed by the
steps taken by the Iranian Government last week on enrichment. And I found in
my meetings with Assistant Minister Qui bilaterally -- we met together for
about an hour-and-a-half -- as well as in the meetings that he and I
participated in among the P-5, that China's voice was very strong in this
regard.

And we very much appreciated that very constructive attitude of the Government
of China and we certainly want to pursue with the Chinese a very intensive
bilateral discussion about Iran because we sense that we have a lot of common
ground with the Chinese, as we do with the other countries.

MR. ERELI: Okay. This is really the last question.

Farah.

QUESTION: A lot of scientists believe that Iran is deliberately hyping their
nuclear progress so that the international community would believe that Iran --
that the program has already gone too far to turn back and that the
international community would accept it. And I'm wondering if you think -- what
you think of that theory and whether or not it's a good theory, given that --
or it's a good strategy, given that the United States Government and the
international community does seem to be accepting some other nuclear programs
that have grown up outside of the nonproliferation regimes, such as the Indian
program. And you mentioned that this is a threat to the nonproliferation
regime, so I was hoping you can talk about that.

UNDER SECRETARY JOSEPH: Well, I have seen speculation to that effect. And there
are certain claims that Iran has made that must be confirmed. As I mentioned,
the IAEA will be on the ground. They've already taken samples. And we should
have greater clarity.

But there still will be many things that we don't know; for example, if in
fact, the 164-centrifuge cascade is up and running, we won't have a good sense,
I think, of how many difficulties, technical difficulties, they've encountered.
There are gaps that are going to exist in our knowledge.

Could they be hyping it? Sure, they could be hyping it. But we're very
concerned by what we have seen and we're very concerned by the conversion of
the uranium, by the enrichment which we believe has happened. These are real
milestones that one can see Iran crossing on the path to full-scale enrichment.
Recently, there have been press reports about additional 164-centrifuge
cascades. This is very troubling. But we do need to confirm the facts on the
ground.

MR. ERELI: I'm sorry. We've got to run. Thanks.

UNDER SECRETARY JOSEPH: Thank you.

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Thank you.
2006/400



Released on April 21, 2006

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov for Senior State Department
Official's statements and testimonies
************************************************************
To change your subscription, go to http://www.state.gov/misc/52620.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppie,
Thank you for complete Briefing on the Iran Nuclear Issue.
I like Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns clear statements and honest answers ....
Thanks,
Cyrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

There are at least two aspects that are extremely significant, besides the comprehensive change in mindset from 1 year ago Burns talked about.

One is the holistic approach noted that human rights, terrorism and the interference in soverign nations would be addressed as well in the various UN fora.

This is I believe exactly what was asked for in SMCCDI's letter to John Bolton last summer.

Noted as well the request of ALL nations to freeze arms sales and economic cooperation with the regime.

Noted as well the diplomacy with Arab states in the region in a comprehensive international debate and his comments directly point to their concern about the regime's intent in the region.

Please note Joseph's comments about the regime's biological and chemical WMD capability.

As well, please take note of Secretary Rumsfeld's level of confidence in US intel assesments of the regime's "nuclear timeline" below.


U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
Transcript
On the Web: http://defenselink.mil/transcripts/2006/tr20060418-12862.html
Media Contact: (703)697-5131 Public contact:
http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html
or +1 (703) 428-0711
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld Tuesday April, 18, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Radio Interview with Secretary Rumsfeld on the Laura Ingraham Show

INGRAHAM: We're joined by Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld.



Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being with us.



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Laura, it's a pleasure to be with you.



INGRAHAM: Secretary Rumsfeld, of course the media has made quite a lot of the seven generals who have come out and are pushing for you to step aside. We've been making a joke every time; it's like three, four, five, six, seven. But why do you think people like David Brooks, pretty conservative - supported what we're doing in Iraq - why do you think people like him and some other more moderate voices have come out and taken this stance?



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: You know, I don't have any idea except that if you think back through history, which you know as well as I do, there's never been a popular war, really. The longer it goes on and the more people are injured, people start wanting to put some daylight between themselves and what's happening.



As the Secretary of Defense of the United States I'm an obvious target for people who can't quite reach the President on it. They go after me. Furthermore, it's an election year so you're going to see a drumbeat go up I think that would be somewhat greater than were it not an election year.



INGRAHAM: I saw Charles Krauthammer a couple of nights ago saying there is absolutely no chance that you would step down. Is he right about that?



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: He is a very smart man. [Laughter].



INGRAHAM: Well, I would agree on that. Some people have said, and I'm going to get to this Iran issue, but some people have said, Mr. Secretary that…look - it's good for these former generals to speak out. It keeps the discussion going. Others have said look - we're in a time of war, this is not good for the mission. Which side of that are you on?



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: You know, I want to think about that and I doubt if I'll even comment on it until I'm out of this job and have a chance to reflect on it a bit.



The center of gravity of this war is not in Iraq or Afghanistan or in the Middle East. It's here in the United States. It's a test of wills between people who are determined to deny us freedom and kill innocent men, women and children. They've killed 3,000 people in our country, some of them right here in the building I'm sitting in, in the Pentagon, and they are a vicious enemy, and I believe that. They need to be stopped and they need to be prevented and we have to do everything we can to protect the American people and to see that they're safe.



If the center of gravity is here and it's a test of wills then we have to recognize that and we have to find the way as a democracy to see that we are able to persevere and not lose our will.



INGRAHAM: Before we get into Iran, we need to talk about what's happening on the ground now in Iraq and some difficult days, and certainly in the last few weeks. How would you describe the situation there now as it stands, Mr. Secretary?



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: It's that awkward period between an election when 10 or 12 million Iraqis brave the terrorists and the risks and went out and cast their vote for a democratic system, for a free system, and elected people and now they have not yet formed a government. So you go from December 15th, now it's the middle of April, and they don't have a government. So the people are starting to wonder about what's going on, why isn't there a government. And it's an awkward period in a democracy.



You think back to the period here in the United States when there's a debate over who won an election, and it's an awkward period.



INGRAHAM: It's also been a very violent period. I mean on Monday I think I'm right about this, maybe about 50 of the terrorists mounted a pretty brazen attack against our Iraqi forces and then they had to be supported by our forces. It was a battle that lasted almost seven hours, which was a fairly significant one considering what's happened in recent weeks.



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: That's right. The terrorists tried to stop the election, they tried to stop the constitution drafting, they tried to stop the referendum, now they're trying to stop the formation of a government. And they're violent people. They cut off people's heads and they do terrible things.



My guess is they're going to fail again and there is going to be a government, and it will probably get announced in the period ahead, and that that will have I hope, a settling effect.



If you think about what's at stake, the people involved in this process recognize that if they are unable to form a government and put some stability into this system and calm the people down, the whole effort, they're looking over a precipice --



INGRAHAM: They sure are.



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: The thought of that country being turned over to the Zarqawis of the world, the terrorists who behead people, and the Saddamists who fill up mass graves with hundreds of thousands of people and use the money and the oil money and the water money to breed terrorists and send them around the world to kill free people is just a terrible thought. We can't let that happen.



INGRAHAM: We're talking to the Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld.



If Americans here in this country continue to, for a variety of reasons, see the current situation in Iraq as either just not as successful as they'd like or an utter failure as so many of them do which disturbs me, does that then undermine our ability to do anything about Iran, Mr. Secretary?



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: I think time will tell. Of course there are different circumstances there. The effort towards a nuclear program in that country raises the stakes, and the utterances of that government, obviously, raise the stakes. The President talked about it today and indicated his concern about the situation and his hope and effort on the diplomatic track to get Western Europe and other countries, Japan and Russia and China, to cooperate in putting pressure on the Iranians.



I think the Iranian people, they're a people that I don't think want to be isolated from the world, and my impression of the behavior of this government is that their acts may very likely have the effect of isolating the Iranian people from the world and I think the Iranian people aren't going to like it.



INGRAHAM: They don't seem to care, though. What indication do you have realistically that the Mullahs and those in government now in Iran are interested in raising their reputation in the Western world? I mean they despise us, they despise Israel, and they hope for our utter destruction. So how is a carrot going to work with them, or negotiations at this point?



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: I guess only time will tell. But you're quite right about the leadership in the government and the President and the utterances he's made are quite extreme. On the other hand, the Iranian people are a proud people - the Persian people - they've got a proud history. And they're not isolated from the rest of the world the way people, for example, in the Soviet Union used to be or people today in North Korea are. These people go in and out of that country. There are Westerners that go in and out of the country. They have a window on the world and they know the difference that exists between the rest of the world and their behavior pattern and the behavior pattern of their leadership.



So my hope is that that will begin to have an effect eventually.



INGRAHAM: Are you concerned with the money that Russia has made and helping them build their nuclear power plant and some of the spare parts that are sold to Iran from other countries around the world, that that's going to make it more difficult for us to move along any line other than a military one?



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: I think that Russia's role in their civilian nuclear program has been something we've talked to Russia about over a period of time. I don't know the actual statistics on that, Laura, as to the amount of money they're making there. My guess is they're making a whale of a lot more money with their energy industry because of oil prices, and the weapon sales they're making to countries like China, that anything they make out of the nuclear program is probably relatively small.



I would think that at some point the Russian people would look at their neighbor in Iran and the proximity to Russia, and the thought of having an Iranian government that's nuclear armed that is obviously supporting terrorists like Hezbollah, ought to be worrisome to the people in Russia.



INGRAHAM: Are you confident that that estimate of a few days ago of being five years or perhaps even ten years away is realistic and accurate given the fact that in the past we've certainly underestimated nuclear capabilities?



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: No.



INGRAHAM: No which part?



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: No, I'm not confident.



INGRAHAM: Uh huh.



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: I think it's a very difficult target for our intelligence community. They work hard at it and they're fine people, but it's a difficult thing to do. Our visibility into their circumstance is imperfect. I would add that if one is asked the question how long would it take them to do certain things totally, alone, on an indigenous basis without assistance from other countries you'd get one answer. If you said to them, if you said what if they were able to get ballistic missiles from North Korea, as they have, and what if they were able to acquire fissile material from somebody? How long would it take? I think you'd get a somewhat different answer.


INGRAHAM: Mr. Secretary, we appreciate you joining us. These are busy days for you. We continue to support the efforts to help our troops and our veterans, everyone who serves our country -- AmericaSupportsYou.mil is one of our favorite sites and we link up to it on LauraIngraham.com, because all of you obviously promote that and we do our best to give those men and women a real, real hug over the air waves every day because they're doing such hard work and it's invaluable.



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Well, we sure appreciate it. I also want you to know how much I appreciate your going over to Iraq and spending so much time and reporting from over there and getting a first-hand look at things. You're terrific to do that.



INGRAHAM: Well, I had the best time and I'm going back in October.



Mr. Secretary, thanks for joining us and taking time out of your schedule today.



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Thanks so much Laura. I'm looking forward to seeing you.



INGRAHAM: All right, you take care.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- News Transcripts: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/
-- DoD News: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html
-- Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html#e-mail
-- Today in DoD: http://www.defenselink.mil/today/

-- U.S. Department of Defense Official Website - http://www.defenselink.mil/
-- U.S. Department of Defense News About the War on Terrorism - http://www.defendamerica.mil/

-------------------------------------

Sometimes I have a knack for asking questions that are bound to ruin sombody's day Cyrus.....(chuckle). Ah well....I don't think my friends would want me to change.....LOL!


Summary: Re: Iran and the Bomb
Category Level 1: Ask the State Department
Date Created: 02/01/2006 12:15 AM
Last Updated: 02/01/2006 12:15 AM
Status: Unresolved


Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Customer - 02/01/2006 12:15 AM
To: Stephen G. Rademaker, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation

It took America just about 3.5 years, from 1942-45 to build an industry from scratch, based on designs from scratch, building a city from scratch to build a bomb from scratch; with only theories to go on, in the middle of the largest and most costly war in history.
Yet we did this and ended that war that had cost 50 million lives up to that point with the weapon that no one knew would even work at the time it was being produced. Just about 3.5 years, from theory to reality, between the time FDR read a letter signed by Einstein till the Trinity test.

Now Iran has had at least 18 years, lots of help from other nations, black market smugglers, and their scientists have had proven designs to work with.

How is it possible then sir, for anyone to be reasonably confident the Iranian government hasn't already aquired these weapons, by any means possible?

(an impossible question perhaps to answer, but one American policy must duly consider, I believe.)

Best Regards,

Eric Jette


--------------------

( aka- Oppenheimer)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:



INGRAHAM: We're talking to the Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld.



If Americans here in this country continue to, for a variety of reasons, see the current situation in Iraq as either just not as successful as they'd like or an utter failure as so many of them do which disturbs me, does that then undermine our ability to do anything about Iran, Mr. Secretary?



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: I think time will tell. Of course there are different circumstances there. The effort towards a nuclear program in that country raises the stakes, and the utterances of that government, obviously, raise the stakes. The President talked about it today and indicated his concern about the situation and his hope and effort on the diplomatic track to get Western Europe and other countries, Japan and Russia and China, to cooperate in putting pressure on the Iranians.



I think the Iranian people, they're a people that I don't think want to be isolated from the world, and my impression of the behavior of this government is that their acts may very likely have the effect of isolating the Iranian people from the world and I think the Iranian people aren't going to like it.



INGRAHAM: They don't seem to care, though. What indication do you have realistically that the Mullahs and those in government now in Iran are interested in raising their reputation in the Western world? I mean they despise us, they despise Israel, and they hope for our utter destruction. So how is a carrot going to work with them, or negotiations at this point?



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: I guess only time will tell. But you're quite right about the leadership in the government and the President and the utterances he's made are quite extreme. On the other hand, the Iranian people are a proud people - the Persian people - they've got a proud history. And they're not isolated from the rest of the world the way people, for example, in the Soviet Union used to be or people today in North Korea are. These people go in and out of that country. There are Westerners that go in and out of the country. They have a window on the world and they know the difference that exists between the rest of the world and their behavior pattern and the behavior pattern of their leadership.



So my hope is that that will begin to have an effect eventually.



INGRAHAM: Are you concerned with the money that Russia has made and helping them build their nuclear power plant and some of the spare parts that are sold to Iran from other countries around the world, that that's going to make it more difficult for us to move along any line other than a military one?



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: I think that Russia's role in their civilian nuclear program has been something we've talked to Russia about over a period of time. I don't know the actual statistics on that, Laura, as to the amount of money they're making there. My guess is they're making a whale of a lot more money with their energy industry because of oil prices, and the weapon sales they're making to countries like China, that anything they make out of the nuclear program is probably relatively small.



I would think that at some point the Russian people would look at their neighbor in Iran and the proximity to Russia, and the thought of having an Iranian government that's nuclear armed that is obviously supporting terrorists like Hezbollah, ought to be worrisome to the people in Russia.



INGRAHAM: Are you confident that that estimate of a few days ago of being five years or perhaps even ten years away is realistic and accurate given the fact that in the past we've certainly underestimated nuclear capabilities?



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: No.



INGRAHAM: No which part?



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: No, I'm not confident.



INGRAHAM: Uh huh.



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: I think it's a very difficult target for our intelligence community. They work hard at it and they're fine people, but it's a difficult thing to do. Our visibility into their circumstance is imperfect. I would add that if one is asked the question how long would it take them to do certain things totally, alone, on an indigenous basis without assistance from other countries you'd get one answer. If you said to them, if you said what if they were able to get ballistic missiles from North Korea, as they have, and what if they were able to acquire fissile material from somebody? How long would it take? I think you'd get a somewhat different answer.


INGRAHAM: Mr. Secretary, we appreciate you joining us. These are busy days for you. We continue to support the efforts to help our troops and our veterans, everyone who serves our country -- AmericaSupportsYou.mil is one of our favorite sites and we link up to it on LauraIngraham.com, because all of you obviously promote that and we do our best to give those men and women a real, real hug over the air waves every day because they're doing such hard work and it's invaluable.



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Well, we sure appreciate it. I also want you to know how much I appreciate your going over to Iraq and spending so much time and reporting from over there and getting a first-hand look at things. You're terrific to do that.



INGRAHAM: Well, I had the best time and I'm going back in October.



Mr. Secretary, thanks for joining us and taking time out of your schedule today.



SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Thanks so much Laura. I'm looking forward to seeing you.



INGRAHAM: All right, you take care.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- News Transcripts: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/
-- DoD News: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html
-- Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html#e-mail
-- Today in DoD: http://www.defenselink.mil/today/

-- U.S. Department of Defense Official Website - http://www.defenselink.mil/
-- U.S. Department of Defense News About the War on Terrorism - http://www.defendamerica.mil/

-------------------------------------

Sometimes I have a knack for asking questions that are bound to ruin sombody's day Cyrus.....(chuckle). Ah well....I don't think my friends would want me to change.....LOL!


Summary: Re: Iran and the Bomb
Category Level 1: Ask the State Department
Date Created: 02/01/2006 12:15 AM
Last Updated: 02/01/2006 12:15 AM
Status: Unresolved


Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Customer - 02/01/2006 12:15 AM
To: Stephen G. Rademaker, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation

It took America just about 3.5 years, from 1942-45 to build an industry from scratch, based on designs from scratch, building a city from scratch to build a bomb from scratch; with only theories to go on, in the middle of the largest and most costly war in history.
Yet we did this and ended that war that had cost 50 million lives up to that point with the weapon that no one knew would even work at the time it was being produced. Just about 3.5 years, from theory to reality, between the time FDR read a letter signed by Einstein till the Trinity test.

Now Iran has had at least 18 years, lots of help from other nations, black market smugglers, and their scientists have had proven designs to work with.

How is it possible then sir, for anyone to be reasonably confident the Iranian government hasn't already aquired these weapons, by any means possible?

(an impossible question perhaps to answer, but one American policy must duly consider, I believe.)

Best Regards,

Eric Jette


--------------------

( aka- Oppenheimer)


Dear Oppenheimer,
Thank you for your informative post regarding Secretary Rumsfield interview. At this critical momonet I am glad Secretary Rumsfield is continuing as Secretary of Defense.
Based on what I know today Powel, Richard Armitage("Iran is sort of democracy"), Jack Straw and Tony Blair are responsible for Iraq strategy failure and we warned in advance .
Secretary Rumsfield, Secretary Rice and US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns are the right people for the job and superb team to deal with Islamofascist in Iran.

I agree with your valid question.
Regards,
Cyrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:41 pm    Post subject: UN Security Council Chapter 7 resolution on TAAZI: US Reply with quote

US Ambassador John Bolton : UN Security Council to mull Chapter 7 resolution on TAAZI (Islamofascist Occupiers Of Iran in Past 27 Years)



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060424/pl_afp/irannuclearpoliticsun_060424184344

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council will consider a draft resolution that would legally require Iran to comply with demands that it freeze all uranium enrichment activities, US Ambassador John Bolton said.

Bolton told reporters the 15-member council would be discussing this week possible responses to a report by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Mohamed ElBaradei.

The report assesses Tehran's compliance with UN demands to stop enrichment activities among other things by a Friday deadline set by the council on March 29 in a non-binding statement.

"Our expectation would be that assuming no change of direction by Iran and there's no reason to think there will be a change of direction, we'll look at a 'Chapter 7' resolution to make mandatory all the existing IAEA resolutions," Bolton said.

Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which is invoked in case of threats to international peace and security, can open the door to sanctions or even military action.

"We will be consulting this week on the nature of the language (of the draft)," Bolton said.

US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, said Friday that Britain and France were expected to present the Chapter 7 draft next week.

But China's UN envoy Wang Guangya, the president of the council for April, warned Monday:"I don't think it (a Chapter 7 resolution) will be a productive move."

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday rejected Security Council demands that Tehran take concrete steps to allay Western suspicions that it is seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and warned that the Islamic republic could quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

He also confidently dismissed any threat of sanctions or even a US military attack.

Commenting on Iran's assertions that sanctions were unlikely because of opposition from Russia and China, two veto-wielding permanent members of the council that have close ties with Tehran, Bolton said: "I don't know what the Security Council is going to do.

"I said repeatedly I think this is a test for the Security Council and we're going to take it step-by-step," Bolton said.

"The first step will be a Chapter 7 resolution."

But some diplomats said there was no certainty that the Council would hold a formal meeting on the issue this week.

US officials have said the political directors of the council's five permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- were likely to meet in Paris some time next week to thrash out a common strategy.

In addition Wang spoke of "proposals that the IAEA board of directors should have a meeting first before the council takes up the action."

Iran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful and that it only wants to enrich uranium to make reactor fuel to generate electricity, as is allowed by the NPT -- the cornerstone of efforts to avert the spread of nuclear weapons.

Washington has meanwhile not ruled out taking military action against Iran if diplomacy fails.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:27 pm    Post subject: Dr. Rice Pushes Security Council on Iran Reply with quote


Dr. Rice Pushes Security Council on TAAZI (Islamofascist Occupiers Of Iran in Past 27 Years)

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_re_eu/us_iran_nuclear_3

SHANNON, Ireland - The credibility of the U.N. Security Council will be in doubt if it does not take clear-cut action against Iran over Tehran's nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday.

Rice made her remarks four days before the expiration of a United Nations deadline for Iran to stop uranium enrichment. That process can produce fuel for nuclear energy or material for nuclear weapons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

I'd venture a guess that there more than one way to take things in perspective.

One chooses whether to condem those who had blinders on, or to praise them for taking them off, when they finally do.

Given that the EU is talking "sanction" w/ or without UN resolution, I'd venture the opinion they are in process of removing them.

If you would refresh my memory as to the date of Mr. Armitage's statement, I may be able to pull up the exact transcript in context.

True enough, Iran does have institutions of democracy, it holds elections and has a parlimentary body. Yet as we all know and is not debatable is the fact that these institutions have been corrupted by the regime to undermine democracy itself.

So in this, I do not believe Mr. Armitage was refering to the regime as being democratic, but rather certain institutions in place that would (under different circumstances) define democratic structure.

As much as my memory serves, I believe this to be the case.


Regards,

Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Dear Cyrus,

I'd venture a guess that there more than one way to take things in perspective.

One chooses whether to condem those who had blinders on, or to praise them for taking them off, when they finally do.

Given that the EU is talking "sanction" w/ or without UN resolution, I'd venture the opinion they are in process of removing them.

If you would refresh my memory as to the date of Mr. Armitage's statement, I may be able to pull up the exact transcript in context.

True enough, Iran does have institutions of democracy, it holds elections and has a parlimentary body. Yet as we all know and is not debatable is the fact that these institutions have been corrupted by the regime to undermine democracy itself.

So in this, I do not believe Mr. Armitage was refering to the regime as being democratic, but rather certain institutions in place that would (under different circumstances) define democratic structure.

As much as my memory serves, I believe this to be the case.


Regards,

Oppie


Dear Oppie,
The following reading might be helpful:

THE END OF ILLUSIONS IN IRAN
Amir Taheri: Elections without democracyIt must decide whether or not Iran is, in the words of the State Department’s number-two Richard Armitage, a "sort of democracy", or a despotic regime using ...

FYI : http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2004/Feb_04/end_of_illusions_19204.htm

Amir Taheri: Elections without democracy
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/2108

Stalinist Mullahs
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200402181614.asp

Regards,
Cyrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:37 pm    Post subject: US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Reply with quote



US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, pictured here on 18 April, said that the United States must persevere in Iraq and Afghanistan to contain "the extreme impulses that we see emanating from Iran."(AFP/File/Brendan Smialowski)
http://news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=story&u=/060424/photos_pl_afp/e4d3ee20554e5e7157275dd8ef9c1aee

Rumsfeld say Iraq, Afghan missions key to containing Iran

Mon Apr 24, 7:20 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060424/pl_afp/usiraqiranmilitary_060424232029

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that the United States must persevere in Iraq and Afghanistan to contain "the extreme impulses that we see emanating from Iran."

ADVERTISEMENT

Rumsfeld linked the costly and unpopular US efforts to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan to US concerns about Iran's nuclear program and its regional might, in an interview with the Pentagon's in-house television channel.

He said those who believe that US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are too costly or are taking too long need to understand that "success in Afghanistan and success in Iraq is critical to containing the extreme impulses that we see emanating from Iran."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:26 am    Post subject: Iran Gave 10Million Dollars to Palestinian Terror Groups in Reply with quote

Mofaz:TAAZI Regime (Islamofascist Occupiers Of Iran in Past 27 Years) gave $10m. to Palestinian terror groups in '06

April 25, 2006
The Jerusalem Post
Yaakov Katz

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498914345&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Iran has given close to 10 million dollars to Palestinian terror groups in Israel since the beginning of the year, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Monday.

"The money transferred by Iran serves as fuel for the terror groups," Mofaz said during a speech at the inauguration ceremony for the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University. "A combination of Hamas's rise to power and Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons demonstrates the growing motivation to perpetrate anti-Israel terror attacks," he said. Mofaz did not elaborate on how the Iranian money reached Palestinian terror organizations.

A senior security official said Monday night that stopping the money flow was extremely difficult. Iran, the official said, employed Western Union money transfers, human couriers and bank wire transfers sent to Palestinians' personal bank accounts to get the money to the terror groups, mostly to Islamic Jihad. The funds were sometimes sent, the official said, to seemingly innocent Palestinians who then passed them on to terrorists.

"There are smart ways to transfer the money," the official said. "It is not just moved in a suitcase. They use Western Union, banks and other ways, and it is difficult to get our hands on it."

Less than an hour after Mofaz wrapped up his speech calling Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the greatest threat to Israel since Hitler, the Islamic republic's leader told reporters that Israel was an artificial state that could not continue to exist.

"Some 60 years have passed since the end of World War II, and why should the people of Germany and Palestine pay now for a war in which the current generation was not involved?" Ahmadinejad said in a televised press conference. "We say that this fake regime [Israel] cannot logically continue to exist."

Hinting that increased efforts needed to be made to stimulate a revolution within Iran, Mofaz called on the free world to invest energy and resources in raising the Iranian people's awareness regarding the dangers created by Ahmadinejad's regime.

"The Iranian people need to know that the regime's efforts to lead global terror will negatively affect them," he said. "More can be done from outside Iran to raise the Iranian people's awareness that the current regime will bring destruction upon them."

Israel, he said, could not afford to be indifferent to Ahmadinejad's threats, especially on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day. "We cannot be indifferent to the declarations made by one of the most radical leaders in the world since Hitler," he said. "We need to take everything he says seriously."

Mofaz's speech - possibly his last public appearance as defense minister - was interrupted by left-wing activists holding signs that protested the killing of Palestinian children during recent IDF anti-Kassam operations in the Gaza Strip. After the protesters were removed from the hall, Mofaz said that Israel, in contrast to the Palestinians, did everything possible to avoid killing innocent people.

"Israel makes every effort not to harm innocent civilians," he said. "The Palestinians do exactly the opposite, and that is why all of these bleeding hearts should first visit the families of terror victims and express their condolences there."

Also Monday, Ahmadinejad hinted that Iran was considering withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He said he didn't think the UN Security Council would impose sanctions on Iran.

"Those who speak about sanctions would be damaged more [than Iran]," he told a press conference. "But no particular event will happen, don't worry."

Ahmadinejad said that Iran would reconsider its compliance with treaty and its membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency if they continued to be of no benefit to the country. "What has more than 30 years of membership in the agency given us?" he asked.

The agency, a UN body, has accused Iran of failing to answer all questions about its nuclear program and referred the country to the Security Council for noncompliance with its demands.

"Working in the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the agency is our concrete policy," Ahmadinejad said. "[But] if we see that they are violating our rights, or they don't want to accept [our rights], well, we will reconsider."

The Security Council has given Iran until Friday to suspend enrichment of uranium, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors or material for nuclear warheads. Iran has rejected the demand, arguing it was entitled to carry out enrichment for peaceful purposes under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ViaHHakimi



Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:33 pm    Post subject: IRAN - JUSTIFIED FINAL SOLUTION Reply with quote

IRAN - JUSTIFIED FINAL SOLUTION

http://www.antimullah.com/

By: Alan Peters

An all day, live poll by an Iranian TV station, Channel One, in Los Angeles, where call-ins were accepted from inside Iran, usually from cell phones, provided a response of at least 50% of callers stating openly they would welcome USA bombing raids, even if civilians died in the process. As long as it removed the Mullahs.



__________________________________________________________
About Alan Peters:
For many years involved in intelligence and security matters in Iran and had significant access inside Iran at high levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979. Currently serve as an SME (subject matter expert) Iran analyst/commentator.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:35 am    Post subject: Dealing with Iran Reply with quote

Dealing with Iran

April 26, 2006
National Review Online
Kathryn Jean Lopez

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/rubin200604250606.asp

Considering nows and thens.

Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez

Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos is the title of a recent academic contribution from Patrick Clawson and Michael Rubin. NRO Editor Kathryn Lopez took its existence as an excuse to check in with Rubin about what's going on in Iran and what historical perspective we should keep in mind in the coming months.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: What's so eternal about Iran? Does "Eternal Iran" mean we can't win?

Michael Rubin: Iran's history goes back millennia. It is important to recognize the historical patterns that shape Iranian state and society. We wanted to correct the faulty notion that the Islamic Republic is the natural state of things. Too many books written by academics in the year or two after the Islamic Revolution assumed that the Islamic Revolution represented the natural evolution of Iranian politics. It is now clear that the Revolution was an aberration. This raises the policy question: Should we do anything that helps prolong the system, or will we side with the vast majority of Iranians who hope for change? We can only win if the Iranian people win. And that means not striking any deal which will help preserve the status quo and a theocracy anathema not only to many Iranians, but also to so many religious Shiites.

Lopez: What's the continuity and what's the chaos? Okay, maybe we've got the chaos part on our TV screens and headlines. What's the continuity then?

Rubin: There is so much that transcends Iranian history. Many Americans think of religious extremism when they imagine Iran. Iranians are religious, but far more important is culture. Iranian still celebrate pre-Islamic holidays and their national epic, the Shahnameh, tells the story of ancient kings far into the pre-Islamic past. The Islamic Republic may like to paint Iran as Shiite first and Iranian second, but ordinary Iranians will have none of that. Pride and nationalism are also important themes that permeate Iranian culture. In more recent centuries, there has been a running battle between the central government and the periphery. Whenever the central government is weak, regional groups exert themselves. That is why the recent violence in Baluchistan and Khuzistan is so interesting. There is also constant tension between outreach and xenophobia. And, unfortunately, among the clerical elite, there are persistent negative trends like rabid anti-Semitism. Few people realize that the yellow star which Jews had to wear in Nazi Germany had precedent in medieval Iran. This does not mean that most Iranians are intolerant; quite the opposite. But whether among the Zoroastrian magi of ancient Iran, or the Shiites today, tolerance does not always permeate clerical circles.

Lopez: The president of Iran seems to really want to get rid of Israel. Will he try? Can he?

Rubin: The presidency in Iran doesn't have much power; it's a sideshow. It is the Supreme Leader that counts. Still, Ahmadinejad may reflect the thinking of the Supreme Leader. It is dangerous to assume that the Iranian leadership does not mean what it says. First of all, this regime is about ideology. We should not mirror image our own value system and thought patterns onto proponents of a theocratic system. To understand the regime, it's important to understand the roots and development of its ideology. Second, the same analysts who dismiss Iranian threats now also discounted Iraqi threats to Kuwait back in early 1990. Our failure to understand that sometimes dictators mean what they say ultimately led to Operation Desert Storm.

Lopez: Are they a real threat to U.S.?

Rubin: Yes. There is a tendency among American policymakers and pundits to self-flagellate. If something bad happens anywhere in the world, it must somehow be our fault. But, a successful, free, liberal society poses a threat to a lot of less successful, less free ideologies. At the same time, it is useful to have a bogey. Traditionally, Iranians have woven conspiracies about Great Britain; now, it is the United States.

The real threat isn't that Iran will drop a nuclear weapon on Washington, but rather that with a nuclear deterrent, its leadership will become so overconfident that it will lash out with conventional terrorism.

Lopez: You know Iran. Every time I say anything about supporting the Iranian people, the overwhelming response I get it "you're kidding yourself if you think they will welcome us and our help." Who is right? Do the Iranian people want our help? And if we help them, will they be our new Persian ally? What if we get something worse?

Rubin: Iranians are nationalistic. They don't want us to dictate to them. But we shouldn't be so condescending. Iranians are big boys and girls and can determine for themselves what is best. We should offer our help and let Iranian civil society determine whether or not they want it, and then judge them on their effectiveness. We certainly should stand up for dissidents. They have already put themselves on the line, but it helps that they know they are not just twisting in the regime. Here the New York Times does itself a disservice. It constantly conflates reformists with democrats or freedom-seekers. They are not. Reformists are part and parcel of the regime and do not speak for the democrats. More broadly, freedom is a very powerful force. Only after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union did we learn how much we had underestimated the importance of moral clarity to Soviet dissidents. In the future after the regime falls, will Iran be an ally? Iran will go its own way, as they should. Like France, they may be a thorn in our side. But, better a diplomatic thorn than a nuclear theocracy. I doubt we will get anything worse. Iranians are quite cosmopolitan and they have a history of constitutional government. Indeed, they are in the centenary anniversary of their original constitutional revolution.

Lopez: Why do folks like you and Mike Ledeen wind up reporting things no one else seems to report — for years now? Are you making it up or is this an Eason Jordan kinda situation — the big-media guys are not reporting the truth because they're afraid to?

Rubin: It never hurts to read Iranian newspapers or speak Persian. I always spend a lot of time on what is going on in the provinces, not only Tehran. I had spent a good deal of time in the Islamic Republic — was there during the 1999 student protests — and met a whole host of people. It is impossible to get a feel for a place unless you're willing to spend time there. And getting a sense for the place is important in analysis.

A bit of clarification, though. At the American Enterprise Institute, we all work independently. I don't know what Michael Ledeen, Reuel Gerecht, or anyone else is doing, nor them me. We sort of operate as a university, without all the petty departmental squabbles. We sometimes agree, and often disagree. It can lead to some pretty interesting exchanges, but policy analysis is about debate.

But you do put you finger on a big problem: Self-censorship. There is a real problem not only among journalists, but also among academics. After Tom Friedman wrote critical columns about Iran a couple years ago, the regime banned visas to other New York Times reporters for about ten months. The New York Times is willing to make compromises they shouldn't. They are willing to accept uncritically Iranian government statistics. Iranian-studies professor have to do original research to receive tenure. This means accessing archives. The Iranian government is notorious about denying visas on political grounds. It's like the foreign-policy equivalent of the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld. If Tehran doesn't like your politics or papers, "no visa for you!" This is compounded by the fact that many Middle Eastern-studies professors feel they need to advocate for their country of study, when they should be neutral analysts. They transform themselves into amplifiers of Iranian rhetoric. It is dishonest and unscholarly, and a main reason why so much debate has shifted out of universities and into the think tanks which approach issues more openly and honestly, are more willing to confront taboo, and less willing to self-censor or sacrifice arguments upon the altar of political correctness.

Lopez: Are we going to bomb Iran before the November elections?

Rubin: Only the president knows. He will act if he feels it is the only way to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. Part of the problem is Iran's overconfidence. They don't think we can act. Bill Clinton faced the same skepticism as he approached the 1998 elections with a challenge looming from Iraq. Presidents — especially second-term ones — make decisions based on national interest, not cynical political calculation.

Lopez: If we get involved in Iran, where does it stop? Is Syria next? You're at AEI, neocon Zionist conspiracy central, so you must have the full war plan, right?

Rubin: I don't have the full war plan; I've been too busy out clubbing baby harp seals. When I was in Iceland last month, some protesters brought suit against me as a war criminal for advocating for an illegal policy. Maybe they thought I did have a plan, but I suspect it was more the matter of self-described progressives trying to criminalize debate. And actually, I'm not just at AEI, neocon, Zionist conspiracy central, but I was also Quaker-educated for 14 years and spent one summer interning for a Democrat on Capitol Hill funded by a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation summer fellowship. Let Mother Jones go nuts with that wire diagram.

Seriously, Washington is a pretty inward-looking place which is unfortunate. There is no master plan or plot. We react to crises as they occur. Indeed, my criticism of the Bush administration is that they are too reactive, and not proactive enough.

Lopez: What's a fact about Iranian history you'd like everyone considering current circumstances to know?

Rubin: People often bring up the U.S.-supported coup against Prime Minister Muhammad Musaddiq in 1953 as a watershed moment. It was. It was, unfortunately, a triumph of realism. But while Musaddiq was no saint — his populism and willingness to use mob violence parallel the strategy of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti — we are paying the price for swimming against the tide of much of the Iranian public. This is why it would be such a mistake to make the same mistake again by holding out an olive branch to the current regime, which is as unpopular now as was the shah in 1953 and 1979.

Lopez: What's something about the Iranian people we should all know?

Rubin: It sounds basic, but Iranians aren't Arabs. While Arabic is a Semitic language like Hebrew, Persian is Indo-European. There are so many Persian cognates: The Persian word for forest is jungle and the word for sugar cube is qand (like candy). Mother is madar, father is padar, and brother, baradar. It is important to know and understand Iranian culture. Iranian poetry is rich, and Iranian cuisine the best in the world. Still, while appreciating Iranian culture is important to derive a more nuanced policy, it is also important to not lose perspective: It is true that 80 percent of Iranians don't support their government and are pro-Western. But it's equally important to remember that how friendly and independent Iranians are doesn't matter; it's the guys with the guns who make the decision and who have for a quarter century isolated Iran.

Lopez: Is there anything Ahmadinejad could ever say that would surprise you?

Rubin: Yes. "We will listen to our people. We will be accountable for our actions. We want to live in peace within our own borders. We will not sponsor terrorism." But, unfortunately in this case, I don't anticipate any surprises.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:04 pm    Post subject: House Backs Tighter Iran Sanctions Reply with quote

House Backs Tighter Iran Sanctions
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
56 minutes ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060426/ap_on_go_co/congress_iran_1

WASHINGTON - The House on Wednesday approved legislation to tighten sanctions against Iran, rejecting administration arguments that tougher sanctions could be an obstacle to international efforts to prevent the Tehran government from developing nuclear weapons.

The bill, said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, sends "a strong message that the United States expects Iran to be a responsible member of the international community."

The vote was overwhelming, 397-21 in favor, but there was also a vocal minority in opposition who drew comparisons to a 1998 congressional resolution calling for regime change in Iraq.

Many voted in good faith for that resolution, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, "not knowing that later on it would be invoked as a cause for the prosecution of war against Iraq."

Supporters emphasized that the legislation does not authorize the use of force in Iran and was a proper response to the Tehran government's nuclear ambitions. A nuclear Iran, said Rep. Christopher Smith (news, bio, voting record), R-N.J. "will be a devastating blow to peace and security, not only in the Middle East, but in the entire world."

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., in effect alters the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 10 years ago by strengthening sanctions against Iran while taking away restrictions on Libya, which is now cooperating with the West in eliminating weapons of mass destruction.

It states that weapons of mass destruction-related sanctions against Iran remain in effect until Iran has verified that it is dismantling its WMD programs. It requires that sanctions be imposed on any person who exports or supplies to Iran goods or technology that help Iran obtain WMDs.

The measure also states that the names of individuals, governments and companies that have invested at least $20 million in Iran's energy sector be published in the Federal Register. It denies U.S. aid to countries that are invested in Iran's energy sector, but gives the president the authority to waive such a ban on national security grounds.

It also authorizes the president to provide assistance to peaceful pro-democracy and human rights groups in Iran.

The administration, in a letter to House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., last month, said the bill could limit the flexibility needed to reach a diplomatic solution to the deadlock over Iran's nuclear program.

The State Department's legislative affairs chief, Jeffrey Bergner, wrote that it could inhibit the administration's ability "to build and maintain an international consensus to confront Iran's violations collectively."

"By sanctioning foreign countries and companies that have economic relations with Iran, this bill sanctions the very countries we need for a strong diplomatic effort," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore.

Rep. Mike Pence (news, bio, voting record), R-Ind., a supporter of the legislation, said the bill had since been changed to give the administration more of the flexibility it sought.

The bill must still be taken up in the Senate, where prospects are unclear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:46 pm    Post subject: Rice: U.N. Credibility at Stake on Iran Reply with quote

Rice: U.N. Credibility at Stake on Iran

By PAUL AMES, Associated Press Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060427/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nato_foreign_ministers_8

SOFIA, Bulgaria - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday the credibility of the U.N. Security Council was as stake as it decides how to deal with Iran's likely rejection of a deadline to bring its nuclear program in line with international demands.

"In order to be credible, the Security Council, of course, has to act," Rice told reporters at a NATO foreign ministers' meeting.

The U.N. has given Iran until Friday to halt its uranium enrichment activities.

She said it was "pretty clear" that Iran would not meet the requirements set by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, regarding the enrichment of uranium — a process that can produce fuel for generators or fissile material for nuclear weapons.

"The Security Council is the primary and most important institution for the maintenance of peace and stability and security and it cannot have its word and its will simply ignored," Rice said.

The United States, France and Britain say if Iran does not meet Friday's deadline, they will seek to make the demand compulsory, a process that could lead to sanctions. That is opposed by Russia and China, the other two veto-wielding Security Council members.

In apparent message to China and Russia, Rice asked, "Is the Security Council going to be credible in making clear to Iran that it cannot be cost-free to simply flaunt the will of the international community?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:01 am    Post subject: Taazi Thug 'Won't Give a Damn' About UN Resolution Reply with quote

Unelected TAAZI Thug has no rights to talk on behalf of Iranian nation.

Quote:

Taazi Thug 'Won't Give a Damn' About Resolution

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060428/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_15

VIENNA, Austria - Iran "won't give a damn" about any U.N. resolutions concerning its nuclear program, its president said Friday, hours before an expected finding that Tehran has failed to meet a Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment.

The anticipated finding by U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei will set the stage for a confrontation at the Security Council.

If Iran does not comply, the council is likely to consider punitive measures against the Islamic republic. While Russia and China have been reluctant to endorse sanctions, the council's three other veto-wielding members say a strong response is in order.

The United States, France and Britain say that if Tehran does not meet the deadline, they will make the enrichment demand and other conditions compulsory and they want punitive measures to stay on the table.

But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said no Security Council resolution could make Iran give up its nuclear program.

"The Iranian nation won't give a damn about such useless resolutions," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in Khorramdareh in northwestern Iran.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 3 of 27

 
Jump to:  
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