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

Skip to comments.

U.S. pushes for U.N. action against Iran
Associated Press ^ | Thu, May. 08, 2003 | GEORGE JAHN

Posted on 05/08/2003 12:01:43 PM PDT by follow the money

U.S. pushes for U.N. action against Iran

VIENNA, Austria - Concerned that Iran may be running a nuclear weapons program, the United States is pushing for U.N. action against Tehran, diplomats said Thursday.

Washington is specifically seeking a declaration from the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran has violated the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which it has signed, according to diplomats familiar with the agency.

The United States has accused Iran of secretly embarking on a program to enrich uranium at Natanz in southern Iran, which American officials fear could be used to make nuclear weapons.

The diplomats said U.S. requests for support have gone out to Russia, France, Britain, Germany and other members of the 35-nation board - the key decision-maker at the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency - ahead of its meeting next month.

The diplomats were confirming a report in Thursday's editions of The New York Times.

Britain, Washington's closest ally, suggested Thursday that it was receptive to the U.S. overtures.

"We share U.S. concerns about the scale and scope of the Iranian nuclear program," said a spokeswoman for Britain's Foreign Office in London, speaking on customary condition of anonymity. "We'll be listening carefully to the (IAEA) director-general's report at the next board meeting."

In Washington, President Bush told reporters: "I've always expressed my concerns that the Iranians may be developing a nuclear program. I have done so publicly, I have done so privately. I expressed those concerns to Vladimir Putin when I was in Russia."

Noting that the IAEA was coming out with its report in June, Bush said, "We'll wait and see what it says."

A declaration, depending on its language, could restrict itself to expressing concern about a violation or increase pressure on Tehran to account for its activities by referring the issue to the Security Council.

That would further strain U.S.-Iranian relations, which took a turn for the worse last year after Bush labeled Tehran part of the "Axis of Evil" for its alleged support of terrorism.

More recently, Tehran has said it would not recognize any U.S.-installed government in Iraq. And Washington signed a truce with the People's Mujahedeen, which opposes the Tehran government, allowing it to keep its weapons although the Iraqi-based group is on the State Department's terrorist list.

The nature of work at the Natanz site was not known until last year. The diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the Vienna-based IAEA, was taken aback at what he saw on a visit there in February.

"It's a sophisticated uranium enrichment plant, and they had come a long way," said one diplomat familiar with the findings of the visit and the workings of the agency. "He was struck by the sophistication and the advanced stage of the project."

The diplomat said U.S. officials "want the agency to produce a very critical report" at the board meeting.

An agency spokeswoman, Melissa Fleming, said it was too early to comment on the Iranian program and whether Tehran had violated its treaty commitments.

Members of the U.S. delegation to the IAEA declined comment.

With Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran being criticized by Washington, it was unclear how willing Moscow would be to back a tough resolution.

The United States claims that the technology and expertise Iran is gaining from Russia's construction of the $800 million Bushehr nuclear power plant could be used for a weapons program, and that Russian companies - perhaps without official permission - have transferred weapons technology to Tehran.

Senior Russian officials earlier this week said there was no evidence Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, while acknowledging that Tehran had to show more transparency in its nuclear programs.

A top Iranian official on Tuesday denied his country had a nuclear weapons program but told the IAEA his country would not automatically submit to tougher inspections. Iranian officials have said they have nothing to hide because their nuclear program is only meant to generate electricity.

On the Web:

www.iaea.org


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bushdoctrineunfold; iaea; iran; nukes; southasia; southasialist; un; unlist

1 posted on 05/08/2003 12:01:43 PM PDT by follow the money
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: follow the money
who is the UN?
2 posted on 05/08/2003 12:03:11 PM PDT by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yonif
Russia sells missiles to Sudan, Syria, Libya
Among 7 nations designated by U.S. as state sponsor of terrorism


Posted: September 18, 2002




The United States has determined that Russia continues to sell missiles and rocket-propelled grenades to such countries as Libya, Sudan and Syria.

The State Department has identified a series of state-owned Russian companies as selling the weapons to the three Arab countries over the last two years. U.S. officials said the Moscow government ignored repeated warnings to halt the sales of the conventional weapons.

Officials said Tula Design Bureau of Instrument Building sold anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles to Libya, Sudan and Syria. The State Scientific Production Enterprise Bazalt exported grenades. Another company cited was Rostov Airframe Plant 168.

Last week, the State Department announced sanctions on the three Russian companies but avoided penalties on the Russian government. Under the sanctions, the three firms will not be able to trade with the United States.

Industry sources said the sanctions will have no affect on the activities.

Libya, Sudan and Syria are among the seven countries that the United States has designated as state sponsors of terrorism. The others on the State Department list are Cuba, Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

The companies are not the first Russian firms to be sanctioned by the United States. In 1998, the State Department listed several companies linked to the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry for allegedly exporting equipment used for conducting nuclear-weapons tests.

In 1999, 10 additional firms were listed for allegedly transferring sensitive technologies to Iran. Three Russian companies were sanctioned for selling military equipment to Syria.

3 posted on 05/08/2003 12:05:23 PM PDT by follow the money
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: *UN_List; *southasia_list
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
4 posted on 05/08/2003 12:06:09 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP


Rumsfeld urges Gulf states not to buy French weapons




France no longer a positive force in the region


SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Wednesday, May 7, 2003
The United States has quietly relayed its opposition to any major Gulf Arab purchase of French military equipment.

Last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld toured GCC states and officials said he discussed France's opposition to the war in Iraq and its help to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. They said Rumsfeld suggested that French defense sales might not be in the best interests of Gulf Arab states.

"He didn't tell anybody not to buy French weapons," an official said. "What he did was intimate is that France no longer represents the U.S. interest for stability in the Gulf region. I think the rest was very much understood."





Health insurance for the self-employed: Special offer



The U.S. lobbying effort comes as France has launched a campaign to expand its market in the Gulf, Middle East Newsline reported. Over the last decade, France has seen its leading position as an arms supplier overtaken by the United States because such countries as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have sought U.S. defense contractors.
Officials and industry sources said the Defense Department has expressed opposition to any major French weapons or upgrade project in Gulf Cooperation Council states. They said Rumsfeld has warned that France, in wake of its alliance with the deposed regime, can no longer be regarded as a positive force in the Persian Gulf region.

Officials said the Pentagon effort was meant to torpedo France's drive to sell up to 110 Rafale fighter-jets to Saudi Arabia. They said Riyad, amid rising tensions with the United States in 2002, was considering a French offer to sell the Rafale as well as the Leclerc tanks to the kingdom.

France might also lose its hold on the Qatari military market, officials said. France already supplies the emirate with 80 percent of its military needs and has been discussing new arms sales.

"It will be difficult for France to make another major sale in Qatar unless Washington agrees," a U.S. industry source said. "Qatar has already told Washington that it will consider a change in suppliers."

Industry sources said the Pentagon also seeks to stop the export of U.S. components for French weapons as well as partnerships between U.S. and French defense contractors. They warned that such a move could also hurt British defense companies, which have formed joint ventures with French arms manufacturers.

Already, the Pentagon said it would not send senior defense officials or U.S. fighter-jets to the Le Bourget air show in June. The move is expected to reduce the presence of U.S. contractors at the biannual exhibition.
5 posted on 05/08/2003 12:17:45 PM PDT by follow the money
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: follow the money; *Bush Doctrine Unfold; randita; SierraWasp; Carry_Okie; okie01; socal_parrot; ...
President Bush is putting the heat on the Mullas!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
  click here >>> Bush Doctrine Unfold <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)



6 posted on 05/08/2003 12:26:52 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Iran will feel the heat of our Iraq victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: follow the money
French fighters flown by Saudi pilots?

when we go to war against Saudi Arabia for 9/11 there will be some personal satisfaction in shooting down French planes ... seriously, who cares, let's just get out of Saudi Arabia ... a bad deal from the beginning ...
7 posted on 05/08/2003 12:30:54 PM PDT by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
"French fighters flown by Saudi pilots?"

Yes, you know, the Mirage. The all white jet with the long wide yellow strip running down the top of it.
8 posted on 05/08/2003 12:50:23 PM PDT by Beck_isright (If France actually won a war that mattered, would the world come to an end?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Beck_isright
LOL ... "Mirage - available in a variety of colors" - Deal of the Century (1983 IIRC)
9 posted on 05/08/2003 12:58:06 PM PDT by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
It is kinda weird, leaving Saudia Arabia so we can invade it fair and square? Why not bypass the middleman and tell the Saudi royal family to take a hike. Of course, there would be no one else left.
10 posted on 05/08/2003 2:03:15 PM PDT by Starrgaizr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Starrgaizr
well of course, the problem in Saudi Arabia is much, much larger than the "royal" family ... the extensive terrorism-financing network of their "princes" and some deeply-entrenched organizations ... and then there's that "other" problem which is another matter altogether ... a black rock known as a "deity" ...
11 posted on 05/08/2003 2:21:40 PM PDT by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: follow the money
Careful on Iran.

I can't think of a better way to give fuel to those who say we are just anti-Islamic and out for world dominance than increasing the heat on Iran, which at least has some policital structures in place that could fuel a regular, peaceful transition to true liberty (unlike Iraq which was destroyed by years of Mr. Hussein's horrible rule). My thought is we should be working to strengthen those structures (such as their Parliament and President), and provide 'assistance' to protect them from their radical reactionist judiciary.

Sigh...what ever happened to the idea of isolationism? I long for the day when we can tell those in the Middle East - "heh...it's your problem...take care of it. We don't want to waste the money."
12 posted on 05/08/2003 2:44:47 PM PDT by sal002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: follow the money
Mabelkitty pushing for US Congress to create a law forbidding any former Congressperson or ex-Presidents from serving as Secretary General of the UN.

Seems the amendment in the UN Charter doesn't exist.
13 posted on 05/08/2003 2:46:31 PM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sal002
Welcome to Free Republic.

Isolationist doesn't work when people attack you on your own soil.
14 posted on 05/08/2003 2:47:54 PM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bobby777
"a black rock known as a "deity""

You mean Mecca?

The funniest thing in this whole scenario (well, sort of) is that scum like Osama bin Laden and the people that guided those planes in that attack on NYC are not true Muslims....strippers, booze - even the Koran agrees with our Bible that those are sins.

What's even stranger about Islam is while we were non-discriminately killing those who were not Christian back in the Middle Ages, Islamic society treated non-Muslims with respect (and even allowed them to practice as they like). How funny it is that the shoe is on the other foot today....

15 posted on 05/08/2003 2:48:13 PM PDT by sal002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
True enough...but someday I hope we can go back.

Besides the insanity justification those men gave for their 'attack' - didn't they also base it on America sticking its nose where they thought it shouldn't.

Not to say that is a good reason, just saying Clinton & Carter's insistence on meddling in the affairs of the Middle East probably fueled those extremists....
16 posted on 05/08/2003 2:49:57 PM PDT by sal002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
bingo ... and a welcome to the newbie too ...
17 posted on 05/08/2003 2:55:47 PM PDT by Bobby777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: follow the money
Good stuff. Your tag line is the answer to many questions of today.

Welcome to FR (unless you have been here in another life form).

Please ping me when you post these types of articles.
18 posted on 05/08/2003 3:25:39 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Free Republic, where leftist liars are exposed 24/7!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sal002
9/11 was the reality check for most Americans that isolationism doesn't work.
19 posted on 05/08/2003 3:27:03 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Free Republic, where leftist liars are exposed 24/7!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
True...although I think the world after 9/11 was the same as the world before...the slower among us just needed something like 9/11 to open their eyes to it.

But then, I could be horribly wrong - I think the WTC was a terrorist target for many years, and was worried that the Clinton Admin and the early Bush Admin was not paying enough attention to it. I am careful to think this, but I believe those that live in the heartland have as much to fear from a terrorist attack as a Vegetarian has to fear from getting "Foot-and-Mouth" disease...but then to be complecent is to invite horror....
20 posted on 05/08/2003 3:32:18 PM PDT by sal002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
But then, when was the last time we were isolationist? 1936 or so? We were by no means isolationist during he Clinton years...he stuck his head in everywhere.

Perhaps 9/11 was a reality check that isolationism DOES work...but we have never tried it...

Just a thought...
21 posted on 05/08/2003 3:33:36 PM PDT by sal002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sal002
Well, you can have your beliefs, and I can have mine.

I think that history is on my side.
22 posted on 05/08/2003 3:35:08 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Free Republic, where leftist liars are exposed 24/7!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Where we isolationist in 2001?
23 posted on 05/08/2003 3:40:36 PM PDT by sal002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sal002
Take you arguments to someone younger and dumber?

Libertariaism 101 doesn't work with me!
24 posted on 05/08/2003 3:45:31 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Free Republic, where leftist liars are exposed 24/7!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Darn fingers don't work too well today, should have been: Take your arguments
25 posted on 05/08/2003 3:46:45 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Free Republic, where leftist liars are exposed 24/7!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
I apologize. I was just wondering because you said "history is on your side". Since something wrong happened on 9/11, that would mean to me to say that the cause must have been factual. If isolationism was the cause, as you seem to insinuate, then it would have needed to have been a fact.

Since we were not isolationist, I fail to see how isolationism caused 9/11.
26 posted on 05/08/2003 3:50:36 PM PDT by sal002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: follow the money
In related news, we're still waiting for Arafart to take action against the Palestinian terror-scum.
27 posted on 05/08/2003 5:08:58 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sal002
Sigh...what ever happened to the idea of isolationism? I long for the day when we can tell those in the Middle East - "heh...it's your problem...take care of it. We don't want to waste the money."

I agree with your sentiment. Reality is (in my best Dana Carvey, Bush Sr. Voice) "Not gonna do it!"

28 posted on 05/08/2003 7:52:37 PM PDT by I'm ALL Right!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RusIvan
PING!
29 posted on 05/15/2003 1:13:01 PM PDT by Orion78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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