Rhetoric heats up as Iran nuclear talks resume

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ELVIS
    Banned
    • Dec 2003
    • 44120

    Rhetoric heats up as Iran nuclear talks resume

    Tehran warns facilities indestructible

    British prime minister calls Islamic Republic a state sponsor of terrorism




    February 09, 2005


    Iran warned the United States Tuesday that its nuclear sites cannot be destroyed by air or missile strikes, as Britain entered the fray by declaring that Tehran is a state sponsor of terrorism.

    Top national security official Hassan Rowhani said on state television that a military strike would only push Iran's nuclear activities underground, and told Washington that the stand-off should be settled by dialogue.

    "Our nuclear centers cannot be destroyed. Our nuclear technology comes from our scientists (and) we can transfer our nuclear workshops under mountains and carry out enrichment where no bomb or missile can be effective," said the cleric, adding he did not consider an attack as a "serious threat."

    Rowhani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, insisted that Iran was "not looking for increased tensions with any country, even with the Americans."

    "We are seeking to resolve our issues with the U.S. But they are blocking any chance of resolving the issues."

    But his comments were followed by yet more criticism of the 26-year-old Islamic regime, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair calling Iran a state sponsor of terrorism and it to renounce its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons.

    "It certainly does sponsor terrorism. There's no doubt about that at all," Blair told a parliamentary committee, backing his close ally U.S. President George W. Bush's view of Iran.

    "Iran has now been given a set of obligations that it's got to fulfill," Blair said of its nuclear program. "I hope they fulfill it."

    Iran hit back at Blair, saying the British prime minister had fallen under the influence of "extremists."

    "This speech was influenced by extremist thought that blindly follows the Zionist regime," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement read out on state television.

    Asefi said Blair was using "opposition to terrorism and nuclear weapons" as a "pretext" to protect Israel.

    "The Islamic Republic of Iran has nothing to do with terrorism and is itself a victim of terrorism, and many of its officials have been martyred in combating this phenomena," he insisted.

    Nevertheless, Asefi shrugged off Blair's remarks by claiming "the British prime minister himself understands his speech is baseless and does not believe what he says."

    Diplomats from Iran and Britain, France and Germany were to meet Tuesday in Geneva for a crucial round of talks in the EU-3's effort to secure guarantees Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons in exchange for diplomatic, security, trade and technology incentives.

    The Europeans want Iran to totally dismantle its uranium enrichment program to ensure that it cannot make weapons-grade material.

    But Iran counters it has the right, under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to work on the nuclear fuel cycle - something critics see as exploiting a dangerous loophole in the treaty.

    Iran says it only wants to make fuel for nuclear reactors, enabling it to generate atomic energy and free up more of its huge oil and gas reserves for export.

    For the time being it has suspended all uranium enrichment-related activities to fulfill its part of a deal clinched in November with the Europeans.

    But Rowhani repeated warnings Iran's patience during negotiations on the issue was not finite: "Our condition for a continuation of the talks is progress. Therefore, if the talks are not progressing (by March 20), we are not obliged to continue," he said.

    And Hossein Mousavian, a top Iranian negotiator, also said Tuesday's Geneva talks would be decisive.

    "As of this meeting and the two next ones, the working groups should begin practical and serious discussions," he told state television.

    "Our working groups will maybe have only one or two more meetings. Iran's decision is to continue the talks only if there is definitive, concrete and tangible progress."

    On Sunday, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States backs the European diplomatic effort but has not "eliminated any alternative."

    And U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last week that military force against Tehran had not been ruled out even though the "question is simply not on the agenda at this point."

    "We are all concerned by the potential of a nuclear weapon in Iran. It would be a destabilizing factor and we cannot let that happen," Rice said on a visit to Israel this week.


  • Nickdfresh
    SUPER MODERATOR

    • Oct 2004
    • 49205

    #2
    How many different "Iran" threads do we need Elvis?

    Comment

    • ELVIS
      Banned
      • Dec 2003
      • 44120

      #3
      13

      Comment

      • ELVIS
        Banned
        • Dec 2003
        • 44120

        #4
        Issues with Iran can be resolved diplomatically

        Press Trust of India

        February 9, 2005




        US Secretary of State Condleezza Rice has said that Washington's concerns about Iran can be resolved diplomatically as long as there is "unity of purpose".

        "US concerns about Iran can be resolved diplomatically as long as there is unity of purpose, there is unity of message to the Iranians, we believe that we have diplomatic solutions here," Rice said in an interview to NBC-TV on Tuesday.

        She also defended her use of the word "loathsome" to describe Iran's policies and said one could not throw the reformists in jail with really no process and not consider that to be loathsome.

        "Iranian regime is special in its internal behaviour and in its external behaviour that seeks the nuclear weapon that is engaged in supporting the very terrorists who are trying to destroy the peace process that we've just been talking about," Rice said.

        When pointed out that Iranian leader Rafsanjani was quoted in USA Today as saying that "the US would not dare to attack us, we have got used to this nonsense, Miss Rice is a bit emotional", she said: "Well, we ought to be emotional about people who live essentially in bondage."

        "We ought to be. Because those of us who are lucky enough to have been born on the right side of freedom's divide have an obligation to those who are still caught on the other side of that divide to care about their progress."



        Comment

        • ODShowtime
          ROCKSTAR

          • Jun 2004
          • 5812

          #5
          Originally posted by ELVIS
          When pointed out that Iranian leader Rafsanjani was quoted in USA Today as saying that "the US would not dare to attack us, we have got used to this nonsense, Miss Rice is a bit emotional", she said: "Well, we ought to be emotional about people who live essentially in bondage."
          You know, think about this for a minute. What kind of fucking moron hires a woman to be head diplomat when we are gonna be up to our eyeballs the next four years negotiating with A-rabs and Persians who have seen women as nothing more than possessions their whole lives? Who's going to take Condi seriously? That's just a terrible choice for SecState if you ask me. Again I'm just shaking my head at the idiocy of gw&friends.
          gnaw on it

          Comment

          • ELVIS
            Banned
            • Dec 2003
            • 44120

            #6
            I couldn't disagree more...

            The entire world takes Rice's words seriously...

            Again, the true liberal colors rise to the surface...

            Comment

            • ELVIS
              Banned
              • Dec 2003
              • 44120

              #7
              Iran Will Never Give Up Nuclear Technology - Khatami


              Wed Feb 9, 2005


              TEHRAN (Reuters) - No Iranian government, present or future, will give up the country's drive to master peaceful nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment, President Mohammad Khatami said on Wednesday.

              In a toughly worded speech to foreign ambassadors in Tehran, Khatami also warned Iran could adopt "a new policy" which would have "massive consequences" if Iran's nuclear talks with the European Union did not prosper.

              "We give our guarantee that we will not produce nuclear weapons because we're against them and do not believe they are a source of power. But we will not give up peaceful nuclear technology," Khatami said.

              "Neither my government nor any other government could be accountable to the nation for compromising over halting this technology," he added.

              Iran denies U.S. accusations that it is developing nuclear arms under cover of a civilian atomic energy program.

              Tehran has suspended key nuclear work, such as uranium enrichment, while it negotiates with the European Union which is offering it trade deals and other incentives if Iran permanently scraps potentially weapons-related nuclear activities.

              But Khatami, echoing tough comments by other Iranian officials in recent days, said Iran would never halt enrichment -- which can be used to make weapons-grade fuel -- and indicated Iran's patience with the EU talks was wearing thin.

              "We consider enrichment our clear right and will never give it up. We suspended it voluntarily to show our goodwill," he said.

              "I stress very clearly that despite all our patience, if we feel others are not meeting their promises, under no circumstances would we be committed to continue fulfilling ours.

              "And we will adopt a new policy, the consequences of which are massive and would be the responsibility of those who broke their commitments," he said.

              Khatami did not elaborate on what the new Iranian policy might be.

              Hardliners in Iran have called on the government to pull out of the EU talks and to stop cooperating with the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

              Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday Iran must accept the EU offer that it scrap nuclear work in return for trade and other incentives or face referral to the U.N. Security Council.



              Comment

              • Nickdfresh
                SUPER MODERATOR

                • Oct 2004
                • 49205

                #8
                Originally posted by ELVIS
                I couldn't disagree more...

                The entire world takes Rice's words seriously...

                Again, the true liberal colors rise to the surface...
                Yes, but then again the entire world takes heart attacks seriously also. That doesn't mean they like them.

                Comment

                • ELVIS
                  Banned
                  • Dec 2003
                  • 44120

                  #9
                  The world doesn't have to "like" her...

                  Comment

                  • ELVIS
                    Banned
                    • Dec 2003
                    • 44120

                    #10
                    U.S. intelligence on Iran seen lacking - experts


                    09 Feb 2005



                    By David Morgan

                    WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence is unlikely to know much about Iran's contentious nuclear program and could be vulnerable to manipulation for political ends, former intelligence officers and other experts say.

                    Amid an escalating war of words between Washington and Tehran, the experts say they doubt the CIA has been able to recruit agents with access to the small circle of clerics who control the Islamic Republic's national security policy.

                    Serious doubts also surround the effectiveness of an expanded intelligence role for the Pentagon, which former intelligence officials say is preparing covert military forays to look for evidence near suspected weapons facilities.

                    "I will be highly remarkably surprised if the United States has (intelligence) assets in the organs of power," said Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

                    "They don't even know who the second-tier Revolutionary Guards are," he added.

                    Doubts about U.S. intelligence on Iran have arisen amid talk of possible military strikes by the United States or Israel against suspected nuclear weapons facilities.

                    Former chief weapons inspector David Kay, the first to declare U.S. intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a failure, warned that the Bush administration is again relying on evidence from dissidents, as it did in prewar Iraq.

                    "The tendency is to force the intelligence to support the political argument," Kay said in a CNN interview on Wednesday.

                    He added that the CIA has yet to give U.S. policymakers an up-to-date comprehensive intelligence assessment on Iran.

                    NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE

                    "We're talking about military action against Iran and we don't have a national intelligence estimate that shows what we do know, what we don't know and the basis for what we think we know," Kay said.

                    Problems arose for U.S. intelligence in Iran a quarter of a century ago after the Islamic revolution, when Washington cut diplomatic ties following the seizure of the American embassy by student radicals.

                    Richard Perle, the influential neoconservative thinker who was a driving force behind the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, said intelligence suffered a major setback in Iran with the arrest of about 40 agents in the mid-1990s.

                    "As I understand it, virtually our entire network in Iran was wiped out," Perle recently told the House of Representatives intelligence committee.

                    "I think we're in very bad shape in Iran," he said.

                    Some intelligence analysts argue a preemptive strike is the only way to delay Iranian nuclear-weapons production, despite the Bush administration's public emphasis on diplomacy.

                    Tehran denies U.S. charges that it is seeking nuclear weapons and has warned that a U.S. or Israeli strike would only accelerate its legal uranium enrichment activities.

                    U.S. intelligence has had a huge credibility problem over reports that prewar Iraq possessed large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing nuclear arms.

                    The assertions were a main justification for the 2003 U.S. invasion, but no such weapons have been found.

                    "If U.S. intelligence was bad in Iraq, and it was atrocious, it's probably going to be worse vis-a-vis Iran," said Richard Russell, a former CIA analyst who teaches at the National Defense University.

                    The task of recruiting useful agents in Iraq faces immense hurdles posed by a secretive decision-making hierarchy and widespread mistrust of the U.S. government, experts said.

                    "People have worked their whole lives on the 'Iran problem' and they'll finish their lives with a huge 'A' for effort and probably a 'C' in terms of recruited human sources," said a former senior intelligence official who asked not to be named.

                    Not even covert forays into Iran by U.S. military units would likely bear much fruit, the former official added.

                    "They're never going to find anything out of substance except that there's some mysterious place in the desert with barbed wire and mines around it," he said.



                    Comment

                    • Nickdfresh
                      SUPER MODERATOR

                      • Oct 2004
                      • 49205

                      #11
                      Originally posted by ELVIS
                      The world doesn't have to "like" her...
                      It would be nice if they respected her. But most people have no respect for lying shills.

                      Comment

                      • ODShowtime
                        ROCKSTAR

                        • Jun 2004
                        • 5812

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Nickdfresh
                        It would be nice if they respected her. But most people have no respect for lying shills.
                        exactly, and add to that, most A-rabs don't have respect for women.
                        gnaw on it

                        Comment

                        • Nickdfresh
                          SUPER MODERATOR

                          • Oct 2004
                          • 49205

                          #13
                          David Kay Says Calm-the-Fuck-Down USA!

                          Kay, Carter urge caution on Iran
                          Former weapons inspector: 'It's deja vu all over again'


                          Wednesday, February 9, 2005 Posted: 5:51 PM EST (2251 GMT)


                          Satellite image of a suspected Iranian nuclear-related facility.


                          WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former U.S. chief weapons inspector David Kay urged the United States on Wednesday not to make the same mistakes with Iran that he said it made with Iraq ahead of the second Persian Gulf War.

                          Former President Jimmy Carter, meanwhile, said that even a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities "would not be successful," but he agreed with U.S. officials who have demanded more transparency from the Islamic republic.

                          In Belgium on Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran must live up to its international obligations to halt its nuclear program or "the next steps are in the offing."

                          "It's obvious that if Iran cannot be brought to live up to its international obligations that, in fact, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) statutes would suggest that Iran has to be referred to the U.N. Security Council," she told reporters after meeting NATO foreign ministers and European Union officials.

                          "The message is there, the Iranians need to get that message, and we can certainly always remind them that there are other steps that the international community has at its disposal should they not be prepared to live up to these obligations," the secretary of state said. (Full story)

                          Kay told CNN he is worried because he's hearing some of the same signals about Iran and its nuclear program that were heard as the Bush administration made its case for the war in Iraq.

                          "It's deja vu all over again," Kay said. "You have the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld] talking about the problems of a nuclear-armed Iran. You have the vice president [Dick Cheney] warning about a nuclear-armed Iran and terrorism; you have [Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice saying, 'Force is not on the agenda -- yet.' "

                          Kay said that much like what happened before the U.S.-invasion of Iraq in March 2003, most of the information concerning Iran's weapons program and capabilities is coming from dissidents who would like to see regime change.

                          As he put in a column in Monday's Washington Post, "There is an eerie similarity to the events preceding the Iraq war."

                          The Bush administration has also recently suggested that the matter of Iran's nuclear program be referred to the U.N. Security Council -- much as it demanded a resolution that Iraq give up its alleged weapons of mass destruction or face military action. Such weapons were never found in Iraq.

                          "It's amazing that we're talking about military action against Iran and we don't have a national intelligence estimate that shows what we do know, what we don't know and the basis for what we think we know," Kay told CNN.

                          Kay, who served as a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq in the first Gulf War and as the chief U.S. inspector in the second war, said he has no doubt that Iran does have nuclear ambitions.

                          "The IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] has now produced damning proof that for 18 years they cheated on their nuclear obligations," he said.

                          "But that doesn't prove that they've taken the final step toward a nuclear weapons program. They clearly have done all the preliminary work. The challenge now is to find a diplomatic basis that will keep them from going that last mile."

                          Kay said the United States must try through diplomatic means to deal with Iran and shouldn't rush into military action.

                          "Let the failure be Iranian failure, not failure of American diplomacy," he said.

                          An Iran armed with nuclear weapons would be especially treacherous because of its ties to terrorism, Kay said.

                          "We're in a dangerous time right now," he said.
                          Ex-president: Attack likely would fail

                          Carter told CNN Wednesday that the U.S. military was "bogged down in Iraq and overextended, in my opinion."

                          "I think diplomacy is a proper approach," he said, "And I believe that's exactly what President Bush is doing, as announced by Condoleezza Rice."

                          In last week's State of the Union address, Bush said the United States is working with European allies to convince Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions and "end its support for terror."

                          Iran insists its nuclear activities are legal and for peaceful purposes.

                          "Iran is a signatory of a [nuclear] nonproliferation treaty," Carter said. "Israel, for instance, is not. Iran still claims -- as backed up I think by the international commission on nuclear weapons -- that they are in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty.

                          "I don't know what the facts are, but I think that's going to be increasingly important for the world to ascertain," he said.

                          "And it may be that through the United Nations Security Council, the United States, the Europeans and others will continue to put increasing pressure on Iran ... to help reveal exactly what is the status of Iran's policies."

                          Carter pointed out that Iran does have a right, under the nonproliferation treaty, to develop a nuclear power program and to dispose properly of the program's waste.

                          "Whether they're doing it legally at this point, I don't know," said the former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner.

                          But Carter said that a pre-emptive strike against Iran -- such as Israel's 1981 attack taking out the Osirak facility in Iraq -- would have little chance of success because most Iranian nuclear facilities are now spread over a wide area and buried deep underground.

                          "It would just arouse the entire Middle East again in an antagonistic response against the United States," he said.

                          "And I'm not sure that we are prepared militarily now to take on another war."

                          CNN

                          Comment

                          • ELVIS
                            Banned
                            • Dec 2003
                            • 44120

                            #14
                            If Iran's nuclear facilities are only for generating electricity, why are they concealed under mountains ??

                            Comment

                            • Nickdfresh
                              SUPER MODERATOR

                              • Oct 2004
                              • 49205

                              #15
                              Originally posted by ELVIS
                              If Iran's nuclear facilities are only for generating electricity, why are they concealed under mountains ??
                              Maybe, just maybe they are afraid of a hysterical Administration bombing their nuclear facilities and spreading radiation fallout all over their country.

                              And if we're so worried about them, why aren't we talking with them? You know we might, just might have some common ground with the Iranians. Their government too is run by irrational religious fanatics, they hate drugs and are fighting a very violent one along the Afghan border, they too hated the Taliban and by extension al-Qaida, but nooo...let's just continue to threaten them with out any real engagement.

                              Comment

                              Working...