| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran rejects Russian nuclear compromise |
| 2005-12-06 |
| Iran's insistence on enriching uranium on its own soil amounts to a "unilateral" rejection of a Russian proposal to resolve a nuclear standoff with the West, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on Monday. Douste-Blazy is the first senior European minister to publicly express dismay at the negotiating stance of the Iranians, ahead of fresh talks expected later this month. Iran has said its nuclear program will enrich uranium only to a level suitable for civilian atomic-power reactors, but the United States and European Union fear Tehran will use the same technology to make bomb-grade material. To minimize that possibility, Moscow proposes taking in Iranian uranium for enrichment and then returning it to Iran. But Tehran has said it will only accept proposals that allow it to conduct a full nuclear fuel cycle at home. "The Russians have made a proposal to Iran for the possibility of a joint venture for enriching nuclear material for Iran. But the Iranians, in a way, have unilaterally refused this," Douste-Blazy told reporters during an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) meeting in Slovenia. "The Europeans wish to give time to negotiations so as to show the Iranians that what we precisely want is to achieve something through negotiations," he said. "We are not trying to humiliate them. But so far Iran has said 'no' to everything." The Islamic Republic rejects suspicions that it is bent on making atomic bombs. It says its nuclear project aims solely to generate electricity. But Iran hid its nuclear work from U.N. inspectors for 18 years until 2003, raising alarm in the West. Talks between Iran and the EU trio of Britain, Germany and France spearheading diplomatic efforts to defuse the crisis are to resume within weeks, diplomats say, but differences over the agenda appear to be holding things up. The EU3-Iran dialogue broke down in August when Iran removed U.N. seals at its Isfahan nuclear facility and began processing uranium, the stage prior to uranium enrichment. "We want to give every chance for negotiations. We have done all our utmost to resume negotiations and bring them (Iran) back within the international community," Douste-Blazy said. Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, told Reuters on Sunday that Tehran's patience regarding Western opposition to its nuclear program was wearing thin and it would give the EU only a few months to settle the matter through talks. On Monday, Larijani said Iran would invite bidders to tender for construction of two 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactors, signaling Tehran would sally forth with plans to establish a large-scale nuclear industry despite Western opposition. The announcement, which did not give a time frame for the tenders or construction, came on the heels of news on Sunday that the government had approved construction of a locally built reactor in the province of Khuzestan. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), decided at a board meeting last month to put off a vote on referring Iran for possible U.N. sanctions in favor of giving time for Russian diplomacy to bear fruit. But Western powers on the board also warned their patience was limited, citing a September board resolution finding Iran in non-compliance with safeguards provisions of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Tehran is a signatory. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #17 They demand to be invaded by Russia to protect Iran from the Amer Marines and Army. As wid Iraq, the Clinton-led Dems will indir supp the war(s) as long as Dubya & Co. keeps spending and invading - you know, criticizing the War vv MURTHA!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-12-06 21:20 |
| #16 Amen, Zen. tick... tock... Mullahwankers. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-12-06 20:55 |
| #15 Everything I've read about producing nuclear materials indicates they need a great consumption of electrical power. Watch the news for blackouts in Iran... |
| Posted by: Flerert Whese8274 2005-12-06 20:49 |
| #14 Steve, it'll be pretty tough to disguise the various large explosions needed to make their weapons R&D infrastructure go away. Snuffing the leadership and scientists is great, but rather complicated. Our HUMINT in Iran sucketh a mighty wind of late. Additionally, while some may argue the point, I maintain that it might be a healthy thing to simply make it known that Iran hath pissed us off sufficiently to where we have now made their entire nuclear weapons program and its ardent admirerers so much twisted wreckage and torn flesh. Iran will not be the last tin pot dictatorship to require this treatment. We may as well get the world used to the fact that terrorist sponsors and sundry aspirants to nuclear capability will begin meeting with extreme unpleasantness from now on. We no longer have the soldiers and materiel to scatter into the four winds as we fight the well-distributed base of terrorist infrastructure. Additionally, I am tired of spilling American blood with the sole purpose of doing all the heavy lifting for our putative allies. If they want to stand around and watch, let them watch us be swift and awesome in our acts and enough of this prinking about. The time is long past for diplomatic delicacy. The dire threat of terrorism demands immediate results with less consideration for collateral damage than used to be permissible. If no one wants to be of assistance (with a nod to Britain and Australia), then let's get the job done with the least amount of our blood being shed. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-12-06 20:48 |
| #13 I have to agree with a 'decap' scenario, but I'd prefer it to be done by stealth. Of course, that would require a competent, no, excellent CIA, and I don't think we have that capability right now. But if we did, I'd prefer to start whacking MM's and key MM supporters, nuclear scientists, etc. in various ways, all of which would be denied, of course. Lots of car accidents, heart attacks and banana peels. There's more than one way to take down a tough target. I'd prefer the quiet way, if we could manage it. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-12-06 19:12 |
| #12 count me among the decap strike group - I also want to see the material assets and family holdings "owned" by the MM's to be taken out . This has been a "religious kleptocracy" more than anything else. They've used the Islamic nbightstick to accrue personal wealth. Nothing says "time's up" better than a large-ass explosion and fire at every one of your financial holdings |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-06 17:51 |
| #11 Canuck - the Iranians acquired the C130's in 1973. It's taken this long for things to get REALLY bad with them. It would take at least 20 years for the reactors to go bad, unless they hire the out-of-work Chernobyl staff. Israel will probably surprise us all, the Iranians most especially. Their "Jerico" missile has a 300km range, and can carry nukes - it doesn't worry Iran. The "Massada" is supposed to have a 3000km range, and can be mirved. Haven't read much about it, but it's supposedly deployed in deep underground shelters in "unusual" places. The "Massada" SHOULD worry Iran, but they may doubt its existence. The only tests were carried out in South Africa in the 1980's. Iran has talked its way into a corner. I'm afraid it's going to get very nasty in the Middle East before things get better. I hope the US forces in Iraq have infiltrated Monkey-boy's militia. The sh$$ will start with another "uprising", I'm sure. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-12-06 17:09 |
| #10 "Douste-Blazy is the first senior European minister to publicly express dismay at the negotiating stance of the Iranians..." "negotiating Stance"??? They're not nogotiating with you, they're LAUGHING at you, ya farggin' idgit! |
| Posted by: Hyper 2005-12-06 16:28 |
| #9 The only option I see is Zenster's massive decapitation strike with conventional weapons keeping nukes as a reserve position. Thank you, SR-71, but .com also deserves credit here as well. He, too, has been a staunch advocate of decapping the mullahs for even longer than I have. Perhaps I've just been a little more None of this changes the fact that merely wrecking Iran's nuclear arms fabrication infrastructure will not bring sufficient change. There needs to be a top-down purge of all those who propagate terrorist sponsorship and the pursuit of atomic weapons. We can choose to do this before Iran precipitates a nuclear catastrophe or we can sit back and watch Israel, in its death throes, glass over the entire Middle East. More power to Israel if they are capable of pre-emptive intervention, but there is no proof positive of such a capability. As a nation and prime target of the Islamists, America owes it to itself (above and beyond the 1979 hostage crisis, and regardless of Israel) to neutralize a country that will surely become a purveyor of atomic bombs to terrorists. For some time, we have already endured the slings and arrows of having acted unilaterally in Iraq. We already have been the focus of Muslim hatred for decades. What is there to lose? It is now for us to decide just how much is at stake with a nuclear armed Iran. I say that this one is for all the marbles. The mullahs have repeatedly demonstrated a total disregard of consequences, be it for 1979, sponsoring Hizbollah, fomenting the Iraqi insurgency or a raft of other international crimes. It is impossible to think that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons will have any other outcome than what has preceded this already extant string of calamities. There is no proof that, once having acquired atomic weapons, Iran will suddenly lapse into some more peaceful mode of existence. More likely, we will be greeted with incessant proliferation of nuclear technology to other Islamist regimes, covert delivery of atomic weapons and materiel to terrorist organizations and the very strong possibility of a nuclear attack on Israel. As mentioned yesterday by pan49, there is no upside to this equation. Inaction, sanctions and negotiation all have the exact same end result; Time lost in bringing Iran to account and further risk to the entire Middle East, Muslim populations included. Iran must be stopped. The mullahs must die. End of story. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-12-06 14:43 |
| #8 What are the odds they will maintain their reactors better than their Hercs....? |
| Posted by: Canuck 2005-12-06 11:53 |
| #7 Douste-Blazy is the first senior European minister to publicly express dismay at the negotiating stance of the Iranians... Funny how people like this are always dismayed by events that a reasonably well-informed twelve year old could have predicted. Ah, nuance... |
| Posted by: dushan 2005-12-06 10:32 |
| #6 The only questions the Mullahs should be asking themselves: Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya? |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-12-06 09:03 |
| #5 You give the Israelis too little credit. We don't know what they'll come up with, but they can't and won't just roll over and let this happen. |
| Posted by: Elmineger Elmoluque4082 2005-12-06 08:48 |
| #4 We are truly moving into a new era. If the asshats get nuclear weapons, they or their proxies will use them. The retaliation should be massive. .com might see his vision fulfilled. The only option I see is Zenster's massive decapitation strike with conventional weapons keeping nukes as a reserve position. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-12-06 08:04 |
| #3 "It occurs to me that we are sitting on the brink of Iran, with it's mad terrorist leader, acquiring and using a nuclear weapon." Sure looks that way. The Mad Mullahs are very likely asking themselves three questions right about now: (1) Does Israel have the capability of stopping us from nuking her into oblivion once we get The Bomb? (2) Does America have the political will to mount a pre-emptive strike which could destroy our nuclear capability before we get The Bomb? (3) Would America have the political will to retaliate against us after we destroy Israel? I suspect they'll conclude-- partly on the basis of what they're hearing from our media, and partly from wishful thinking-- the answer to all three questions is "NO." And if that's the case, a couple million people may end up paying with their lives for the cynical anti-war posturing of our Democratic Party. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-12-06 08:04 |
| #2 It occurs to me that we are sitting on the brink of Iran, with it's mad terrorist leader, acquiring and using a nuclear weapon. However, if I didn't read rantburg, I probably wouldn't even have a clue of how serious this situation is...or for that matter, that there was even was a situation to begin with. I guess all the fussy people just think that |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-12-06 07:00 |
| #1 I would like, very very much, for the EU dancers, the Iranian negotiator, the Russian FM meddlers, and most especially ElBaradei be together in a meeting and... The last thing they see is a yellow-orange fireball... The last thing they feel is the searing heat melting their eyes... The last thing they hear is "Allahu Akhbar!"... Then I would consider the last year's worth of mindless dithering to have a purpose unseen by everyone here the day it began. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-12-06 05:51 |