Posted on 01/18/2006 5:38:35 AM PST by stm
TEHRAN, Iran — France rejected Iran's request for more talks on the Islamic republic's nuclear program, saying Wednesday that Tehran first must suspend its atomic activities
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TEHRAN, Iran - France rejected Iran's request for more talks on Iran's nuclear program, saying Wednesday that Tehran first must suspend its atomic activities. Iran asked for a ministerial-level meeting, but its decision to resume some activities "means that it is not possible for us to meet under satisfactory conditions to pursue these discussions," French Foreign Ministry spokesman Denis Simonneau said in Paris.
U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns supported the idea that Iran should suspend its program and return to talks.
"There is a consensus that Iran should turn back, return to negotiations and suspend its nuclear program," Burns told reporters in Bombay, India, during a South Asia tour. "But that's not the path Iran is on now."
The Bush administration sent Burns to London to coordinate a strategy with Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia on dealing with Iran. Burns conceded differences remained after Tuesday's meeting.
"We reached a consensus on some points ... others need to be worked on," he said.
Burns repeated U.S. demands that the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency refer Iran to the Security Council — where it could face sanctions — for resuming research on centrifuges used in uranium enrichment. Russia and China oppose sending Iran to the Security Council.
Earlier Wednesday, Iran's foreign minister told state radio the nation's chances of being referred to the U.N. Security Council were slim. Manouchehr Mottaki did not give a reason for his view, but emphasized that Iran wanted to restart negotiations with Britain, France and Germany.
The European states, with U.S. backing, were calling for a Feb. 2 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency to discuss taking action against Iran following Tehran's decision earlier this month to resume small-scale enrichment of uranium — a process that can produce material for atomic reactors or bombs.
A draft resolution for the meeting, read in part to The Associated Press in Vienna, Austria, says Britain is proposing that the 35-nation IAEA refer Iran to the Security Council, but it stops short of calling for punitive measures.
Instead, the draft urges the 15-nation council to press Tehran "to extend full and prompt cooperation to the agency" in its investigation of suspect nuclear activities.
Russia and China are wary of Security Council involvement, and other members of the IAEA board, such as Egypt, also are cautious.
"In view of the overall situation, we regard the possibility of the hauling of Iran's nuclear case to the Security Council to be weak," Mottaki told Iranian radio.
"During the past 10 days we have tried to relay our message to all relevant parties, including the Europeans, about readiness of Iran to negotiate on the production of nuclear fuel."
Mottaki said he hoped European countries would avoid taking steps that could only worsen the current situation — an apparent reference to the talk of sanctions in the United States and Europe.
The United States accuses Iran of trying to secretly build nuclear weapons — a charge Iran denies. Britain, France and Germany have been trying to persuade Iran to import nuclear fuel, but Iran has rejected this.
Meanwhile, a delegation of Israeli security experts was in Moscow on Wednesday to meet with Russia's Security Council and Foreign Ministry in hopes of winning Russian backing for Security Council referral.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov indicated Tuesday that Moscow believes it is too early to talk about sanctions.
The French are merely holding out for the really lucrative oil contracts Iran has.
Here's my solution to the Iran nuke problem. The U.S. should do "nothing." Stop trying to "lead the world" on this. Of course by "do nothing," I mean do the following:
1. Announce that we may reposition our nuclear warheads toward Iranian targets.
2. Forge a defense pact with Israel (if there isn't one already) stating that we will consider any attack on Israel as an attack on the U.S.
3. Follow through if necessary.
The advantage of this plan is that it forces Iran to spend billions on weapons at the expense of its people. And it would have no negative impact on pro-democratic forces in Iran.
Flame away.
Agree. And, the thing is, I have this feeling that it's more likely that a rogue nuke would hit Europe before it hit the US. I suspect that might change Europe's attitude somewhat.
I agree with you, let someone else "take the lead."
Other countries (Israel and European ones) are in far more danger of Iranian nukes than we are.
I have no problem with a retaliatory strike, if they strike Israel or a European target.
the thought for the day is as follows. i believe sometime around 98 or 99, the chinese foreign minister said to clintons sec of state the following, in my own words but you can look it up. the thing you americans must think is if you are willing to trade los angeles for shanghai, because we are. this was in reference to nukes. obviously iran shall have her nukes and we must now comtemplate the fact that we have to be willing to trade new york for tehran. its going to be a fact of life.
For what it does on its knees most of the time...it doesnt need them, right?
My point was that there are other who have more to lose, who are in a greater danger.
Why should they rely on us to destroy their threats?
Other countries are more than capable of dealing with them, and they are in greater danger than we are.
Reminds me of the arguments prior to 2003: "You want to wait for a 'smoking gun' or a 'smoking hole'?"...
well, yes and no. for example, if tehran decides to nuke france, do i really care? NO. but then, i realize the worlds economy would grind to a halt, literally. that means i have to care. as far as others having much more to lose than us, you are correct, since we benefit from world dominion as we set the playing rules. but make no mistake, muslims understand quite well that their real target is the continental usa. europe is merely a sideshow. they know full well the israel will be protected more than new york city by americas christians, no matter what liberal jews tell you.
Ohhhhh... France is suddenly a bunch of 'bad boys', bunch of cowboys here folks.
I don't expect it to last long, but I'm surprised to see it at all. I guess the RIOTS and Ceriac's plummeting popularity after it for being such a weak wimp (and the 'toughguy' whats-his-name rising) have had some effect.
The problem with your plan is that while Iran is openly threatening Israel, that is not the ONLY threat.
Iran could just as well, develop nuclear capability and then give it to one of the terrorist groups, who would smuggle into another country, maybe the US (borders not yet secure).
Then if say Detroit was blown up, you could not easily trace it to Iran.
Other countries (Israel and European ones) are in far more danger of Iranian nukes than we are.
I have no problem with a retaliatory strike, if they strike Israel or a European target.
I agree. Talk of war is premature and really shows a lack of deep thinking. Iran has convinced many, many Muslims that they have a *right* to nuclear energy and those same Muslims (in whatever country) already resent America. Look at some of the Pakistanis reaction to the bombing of the suspected terrorist *dinner*.
How foolish we would be to rush in and antagonize millions upon millions of militants and even moderates and turn this into a world war against a religion rather than a war on terrorism. And then there's China and Russia. Don't think they would just sit by while we bombed Iran.
If Iran nukes Israel or Europe - we can retaliate at that time. In the meantime - let Europe grow up a little and let them realize that we are not their savior. They are going to have to address this and develop an international consensus of some kind.
I concur wholeheartedly with this. The chink in the containment argument is the terrorist getting a nuke from the Iranians. However, given core power distribution information and fuel loading, the US could probably type-cast the Iranian nuke and then deliver a comparable response. That would probably take time and we might lose our will.
I am for a comparable approach with NK. Tell them to go ahead and build their nukes, let them know that our boomers are keeping an eye on them (assuming SK and Japan are uninterested in actually staging weapons on their territory), and wait for their country to implode.
Wealth compounds, and the Middle East and socialist backwaters fall further behind the first world at a faster and faster clip. The people enslaved in these despotisms need to take the matter in hand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.