Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iran Gets 30 Days to Clear Nuke Suspicions
AP via Yahoo! ^ | Thursday, March 30, 2006 | EDITH M. LEDERER

Posted on 03/30/2006 4:46:07 AM PST by Momaw Nadon

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council gave Iran 30 days to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons, and key members turned their focus on what to do if Iran refuses to suspend uranium enrichment and allow more intrusive inspections.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Berlin on Thursday for discussions between the five permanent council members — the United States, Russia, China Britain and France — plus Germany, on how much and what kind of pressure to exert on Iran if it refuses to comply.

After three weeks of intense negotiations, the 15-member Security Council approved a statement Wednesday asking the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium.

The statement, made available to The Associated Press, takes into account Russian and Chinese reservations about too much toughness, while meeting U.S., French and British calls for keeping the pressure on Tehran.

It "notes with serious concern Iran's decision to resume enrichment-related activities ... and to suspend cooperation with the IAEA under the additional protocol" — an agreement allowing agency inspectors wide access on short notice to Iran's nuclear program.

The statement also calls on Iran to return to "full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related ... activities."

Rice called the statement an "important diplomatic step" that showed the international community's concern about Iran. Before meeting with her counterparts, she was consulting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

"We are very close today to taking the first major step in the Security Council to deal with Iran's nearly 20-year-old clandestine nuclear weapons program," John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said in New York. "It sends an unmistakable message to Iran that its efforts to deny the obvious fact of what it's doing are not going to be sufficient."

Iran remained defiant, maintaining its right to nuclear power but insisting that it had no intention of seeking weapons of mass destruction.

On Thursday, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki condemned "unjustified propaganda" about its peaceful nuclear program. "Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and has never diverted towards prohibited activities," Mottaki told the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

But, he added, Iran is willing to continue talks with the IAEA over its nuclear program.

"We are willing to continue with negotiations and also continue with our sincere and constructive cooperation with the agency," Mottaki told reporters after the conference session. "Our cooperation with the agency will continue."

Security Council members described the statement, while not legally binding, as a first step to pressure Iran to make clear its program is for peaceful purposes. It also calls on Iran to ratify the IAEA's additional protocol, which allows unannounced inspections.

The Security Council could eventually impose economic sanctions, though Russia and China say they oppose such tough measures.

The Europeans initially proposed a much stronger statement but accepted a milder one to secure the support of Russia and China. Western countries agreed to drop language that proliferation "constitutes a threat to international peace and security." Also gone is a mention that the council is specifically charged under the U.N. charter with addressing such threats.

Russia and China had opposed that language because they wanted nothing in the statement that could automatically trigger council action after 30 days.

"For the time being we have suspicions," Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said. "So from that point of view, it is like a ladder. If you want to climb up, you must step on the first step, and then the second, and not try to leap."

The West has refused to rule out sanctions, and U.S. officials have said the threat of military action must also remain on the table.

Negotiations between Iran and France, Germany and Britain collapsed in August after Tehran rejected a package of incentives offered in return for a permanent end to uranium enrichment. Its moves to develop full-blown enrichment capabilities led the IAEA's board to ask for Security Council involvement.

Beyond giving formal blessings for the council statement — and using it to reflect a show of unity — Rice and the ministers from France, Britain, Russia, China and Germany were not likely to accomplish much at Thursday's meeting formally set to last only 90 minutes.

While the officials were expected to touch on ways to engage Iran diplomatically, major differences persist on that approach.

In a confidential letter earlier this month, Britain argued for including the other permanent Security Council members in talks with Iran. In exchange, they hoped to secure Russian and Chinese support for increasing pressure on Iran through binding council resolutions that could be enforced militarily.

A senior European official said on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to speak to the media that Britain's "proposal is not off the table." But a U.S. official, who also requested anonymity for the same reason, said Washington opposed including more countries in the negotiations.

"From the beginning, our position has been that we don't think it's helpful to have other countries joining the EU-3 in the dialogue because it has the potential of diluting the Western position on Iran," he said.

The U.S. official did not, however, rule out direct discussions between the United States and Iran, suggesting they could be a spinoff of the U.S. administration's decision earlier this month to talk to Iran about Iraq after a nearly three-decade break in diplomatic ties.

The U.S. administration has publicly emphasized those talks would not touch on the nuclear issue. But the official said that "if some understanding emerges from those discussions, then the one side or the other might say, 'Let's have some follow-up.'"


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iaea; inspections; iran; irannukes; nuclear; nuclearweapons; nuke; securitycouncil; tehran; un; uranium; weapons
FYI and discussion
1 posted on 03/30/2006 4:46:09 AM PST by Momaw Nadon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
The U.N. Security Council gave Iran 30 days to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons, and key members turned their focus on what to do if Iran refuses to suspend uranium enrichment and allow more intrusive inspections.

Ten years of sanctions and intermittent visits by pedophile Scott Ritter?

2 posted on 03/30/2006 4:48:34 AM PST by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
this is yesterday news

im waiting for the 60 day extension with low payment option

and a warrant for extension of the first extension by another 120 day extension due to a good behaviour and a morning prayer clause
3 posted on 03/30/2006 4:49:40 AM PST by Flavius (Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
The U.N. Security Council gave Iran 30 days to clear up suspicions that conceal and obfuscate the fact it is seeking nuclear weapons.....
4 posted on 03/30/2006 4:52:27 AM PST by edpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
...as a first step to pressure Iran...

How come we keep going back to the first step? When is the first step really going to happen?

5 posted on 03/30/2006 4:55:53 AM PST by Redleg1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius
im waiting for the 60 day extension with low payment option

Or, the mullahs get to choose 0 percent interest if they're not interested in the cash-back option.

The League of Nations never died, it just changed it's name like any other bankrupt business seeking a way to continue victimizing the public.
6 posted on 03/30/2006 5:00:49 AM PST by mkjessup (The Shah doesn't look so bad now, eh? But nooo, Jimmah said the Ayatollah was a 'godly' man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon

It took them all this time to come up with 'comply or else'.
How long will it take them to come up with a description of the "or else"?


7 posted on 03/30/2006 5:01:42 AM PST by nuconvert ([there's a lot of bad people in the pistachio business])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon; Peach; Mo1
The U.S. official did not, however, rule out direct discussions between the United States and Iran, suggesting they could be a spinoff of the U.S. administration's decision earlier this month to talk to Iran about Iraq after a nearly three-decade break in diplomatic ties.

The U.S. administration has publicly emphasized those talks would not touch on the nuclear issue. But the official said that "if some understanding emerges from those discussions, then the one side or the other might say, 'Let's have some follow-up.'"

Now indicating direct talks with Iran about their nukes might be a possibility, eh? And the game continues....ping

8 posted on 03/30/2006 5:01:52 AM PST by prairiebreeze (Censure Feingold!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
The UN is playing Dean Wormer to Iran's "Animal House".

"You better watch it buster!"

9 posted on 03/30/2006 5:03:22 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edpc

And aiding Iran in it's ongoing coverup will be Mohammad El Baradei and his disgracefully impotent and anti-American IAEA. Mohammad, I hope you're reading this, you (and by extension Hans Blix) did a great job stopping India, Pakistan, North Korea and Libya (the US and Britain stopped Libya) from developing nukes. I'm also confident you'll stop Egypt (your birth place) and Saudi Arabia from doing the same. Please keep up the good work. (unbelievable sarcasm alert)


10 posted on 03/30/2006 5:03:48 AM PST by moose2004 (You Can Run But You Can't Hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon

Those sons'o'bitches could detonate a nuke in the desert tomorrow... and the UN would sanction Israel for having sour faces.


11 posted on 03/30/2006 5:07:06 AM PST by johnny7 (“Nah, I ain’t Jewish, I just don’t dig on swine, that’s all.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
Condoleezza Rice arrived in Berlin on Thursday for discussions between the five permanent council members — the United States, Russia, China Britain and France — plus Germany, on how much and what kind of pressure to exert on Iran if it refuses to comply.

Hmmm. How is Iran supposed to decide whether or not to comply, before it knows what kind of pressure is applied?

12 posted on 03/30/2006 5:09:26 AM PST by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
Is it going to be 30 days or else? Or 30 days, plus 30 more UN delays and red-tape, coupled by 30 times 30 more & one & on .....& on ... & .....
13 posted on 03/30/2006 5:15:06 AM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon

Iran isn't going to fold.

In 30 days, Iran will be 30 days closer to an operational nuclear capacity, the next resolution will include, by US (Bush) demand, language directly or indirectly authorizing the use of force if Iran doesn't comply, the resolution will either be defeated or never brought to vote, subject to Chinese veto, the time limit specified in the non-adopted resolution will expire, and the B2's will fly.

Esfahan and a few other Iranian cities and towns may end up uninhabitable, Israel's Arrow system will succeed or fail, we might get driven clear out of Baghdad (but not Iraq) before REFORGIR turns the balance back our way, maybe the Hormuz Striats will close for a week or two, the only real question left is whether we stop at the border or drive all the way to Teheran.

I vote Teheran. A wounded snake is a wounded snake. I prefer them dead.


14 posted on 03/30/2006 5:18:02 AM PST by jeffers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon

Iran isn't going to fold.

In 30 days, Iran will be 30 days closer to an operational nuclear capacity, the next resolution will include, by US (Bush) demand, language directly or indirectly authorizing the use of force if Iran doesn't comply, the resolution will either be defeated or never brought to vote, subject to Chinese veto, the time limit specified in the non-adopted resolution will expire, and the B2's will fly.

Esfahan and a few other Iranian cities and towns may end up uninhabitable, Israel's Arrow system will succeed or fail, we might get driven clear out of Baghdad (but not Iraq) before REFORGIR turns the balance back our way, maybe the Hormuz Striats will close for a week or two, the only real question left is whether we stop at the border or drive all the way to Teheran.

I vote Teheran. A wounded snake is a wounded snake. I prefer them dead.


15 posted on 03/30/2006 5:18:37 AM PST by jeffers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
You have 30 days to comply or we will issue you a VERY strongly worded statement!

The UN.
16 posted on 03/30/2006 5:21:06 AM PST by jrg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon

Get a series of "dirty" bombs. Irradiate the sites where nuclear work is being done.

That way, even if all the facilities are not destroyed, they're unusable.

Regards, Ivan


17 posted on 03/30/2006 5:23:28 AM PST by MadIvan (Ya hya chouhada! Dune fans, visit - http://www.thesietch.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeffers
Do you really think we or Israel are going to hit Iranian cities with Nuclear weapons, on first strike basis.

Because they will not stop their Nuclear developmnment that may and I mean may lead them to developing a Nuclear Weapon in the distant future.

From all accounts Iran is still a long way of from manufacturing such a weapon so we still have time.

And if they ever do, do you think everyone in the Iranian leadership has a death wish that includes the Iranian Military that does have a number of pragmatic Generals.

18 posted on 03/30/2006 5:23:48 AM PST by tonycavanagh (We got plenty of doomsayers where are the truth sayers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

With any other country I think talks would be productive

But the President of Iran is a loon


19 posted on 03/30/2006 5:29:47 AM PST by Mo1 ("Stupidity is also a gift from God, but it should not be abused." Pope John Paul II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
What I would like to know is who is developing the nuclear ability for Iran. It is certainly not Iran. This is a country that does not have central sewer systems or even running water everywhere. the idea that Iran has a scientific infrastructure and an industrial base to produce nukes is far fetched.

Is it the Germans, the French, Russia? Who?
20 posted on 03/30/2006 5:58:10 AM PST by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
What was the final count of U.N. Security Council Resolutions did that impudent organization pass targeting Saddam's Iraq and over how many years?

At least 8 years of the last democrat president in office.

One year of a republican president and Saddam is gone!

Will President Bush now pull a Clinton and not do a thing and let the next guy handle it?

21 posted on 03/30/2006 6:09:01 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
Just brings Iran 30 days closer to having the bomb. Face it the UN is impotent and has neither the will nor the way to stop Iran from getting the bomb. It would take US action to enforce the UN resolutions just like it did in Iraq. Given the Democrats hate Bush position and the stirred up unpopularity for the war in Iraq, Bush would be impeached if he attempted to intervene in Iran.

We better get used to the idea of a nuclear armed Iran, because unless they were to use their nuclear weapons, no one is seriously going to do anything.

22 posted on 03/30/2006 6:31:35 AM PST by The Great RJ ("Mir wölle bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon

And if they don't the UN will have a hissy-fit!


23 posted on 03/30/2006 6:32:47 AM PST by Panzerlied ("We shall never surrender!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
"We better get used to the idea of a nuclear armed Iran, because unless they were to use their nuclear weapons, no one is seriously going to do anything."

Then we better get used to the idea that Iran is going to use the bomb on Israel and the U.S. indirectly through the use of terrorists.

I'm sure the U.N. will respond appropriately, if we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bombs came from Iran. Of course, it won't help the dead Israelis or the one or two destroyed U.S. cities.

24 posted on 03/30/2006 6:52:53 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

It's all a game to Iran; stalling while they continue their work.


25 posted on 03/30/2006 6:57:04 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Flavius; MadIvan

We all agree that this isn´t the way to prevent Iran from getting nukes. But it´s the way to prepare appropriate steps. The decisive moment will be, when we *officially* find out that Russia and China will not do everything they can to stop Iran. Will the US be ready to take effective military action (concerns of a rising oil price cannot be an arguement against that)? Will the UK and this time France & Germany support these actions actively? Never forget, we once had a precedent - Kosovo. The alliance has proven that it can act without the blessing of the UN, which will be blocked by Russia and China, as so often.


26 posted on 03/30/2006 8:14:20 AM PST by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus

"Alright. From now on, they're on "double-secret" probation!"

27 posted on 03/30/2006 8:33:49 AM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (A Liberal: One who demands half of your pie, because he didn't bake one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson