| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | |
| Iran sez it's running out of patience on the nuclear issue | |
| 2005-12-05 | |
| Iran's patience regarding Western opposition to its nuclear program is wearing thin and Tehran will give the EU only a few months to settle the issue through talks, the country's chief nuclear negotiator said on Sunday. Ali Larijani added Iran would only accept proposals to resolve the dispute which allowed it to produce nuclear fuel on its own soil. The West wants Tehran to scrap plans to enrich uranium at home. Iran says it will only enrich uranium to a level useable in atomic power reactors but Washington and the European Union fear it could use the same technology to make bomb-grade material. "We've been in talks for years with no result," Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told Reuters. "We are following this case patiently but the nation's patience has a limit," he said. Asked how long Iran's patience and its commitment to a two-year-old voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment activities would last, he said: "A few months. We have a limited time framework for talks." Talks between Iran and the EU trio of Britain, Germany and France will resume in the next two or three weeks, Larijani said. The talks collapsed in August when Iran removed U.N. seals at its Isfahan nuclear facility and began processing uranium, the stage prior to uranium enrichment. To allay concerns it may use its nuclear plants to produce arms-grade material, Iran has proposed that other countries participate in its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. It has also pledged to allow close monitoring of its activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). EU and Russian officials have said in recent weeks that they wanted to discuss a proposal whereby Iran would enrich uranium only in Russia under a joint venture. But Larijani, while insisting that no such proposal has been made to Iran, said Tehran would not forego its right as a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop its own nuclear fuel activities for peaceful purposes. "We welcome any plan under which Iran's right to enrich uranium on its soil is respected," he said. "Our nation has every right to enjoy the same rights that other IAEA members enjoy. We demand the same rights," he added. Despite the apparent impasse over enrichment, Larijani said he was "not negative" about the upcoming talks. "I see talks with the EU as a win-win game," he said. "Winning for Iran means having uranium enrichment for nuclear fuel and winning for the European Union means being assured that ... our nuclear program will not become a weapons program. "A formula can be found to make both sides happy and satisfied," he said, reiterating Iran's offer to allow foreign companies to participate at Natanz. But he urged the EU to drop threats to refer Iran to the Security Council for possible sanctions. "Talks under threat are meaningless," he said.
| |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #12 deniable? Call it collateral from 1979 |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-05 21:57 |
| #11 Don't forget sub-rosa stuff... Some deniable action is due. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-12-05 21:22 |
| #10 commence bombing during El-Baradei's next visit. Islamist first, UN watchdog fourth or fifth down the ladder of priorites. Let him taste the broken containment |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-05 20:55 |
| #9 SANCTIONS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Posted by: bgrebel9 2005-12-05 20:00 |
| #8 I favor (a). Let them play the victim but be damn sure they don't have the bombs. And how on this green earth are we supposed to "make damn sure they don't have the bombs"? ElBaradei, himself, has shown the complete and utter futility of negotiating with Iran. They refuse to be transparent so there is ZERO chance of any sureity regarding self-reporting or inspection scheme. The only way to be sure Iran does not have any bombs is to wreck their fabrication infrastructure. That delay will provide time for some sort of regime change, preferrably explosive, and then progress to disarmament. Who gives a rip what the outside Muslim world thinks? They already hate the USA with a passion that will remain unaltered if we take out Iran. Should the mullahs acquire nuclear weapons all bets are off and, compared to an invasion or bombing, the results of them using a single atomic bomb would be far more devastating to the Middle East and Iran itself. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-12-05 17:15 |
| #7 I am not suggesting a course of action for the good guys. I'm trying to explain a possible rational for the irrational statements Iran has been making. From Iran's point of view. (a) they got bombed and thus rally Islamoids to their side as victims also covering up failures to their nuke program. (b) they don't get bombed and they can pretend to have nukes and scare people. From a USA/Western Civilization point of view I favor (a). Let them play the victim but be damn sure they don't have the bombs. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-12-05 14:27 |
| #6 Nice thought, rjschwarz, but as noted by 49pan, there simply is no up side to this equation. Waiting only plays into the Mullah's hands with far worse consequences. Holding off until the successful test of a warhead can only mean that Iran may have already manufactured a dozen of them before then. .com and myself have been advocating a decap for some time now and ElBaradei's admission that Iran is only "months away" from assembling a device puts paid to any arguments otherwise. Iran's mullahs need to take the dirt nap pronto! |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-12-05 11:54 |
| #5 Imagine for a second what would happen if they were way behind on the bomb schedule. The bombs don't work, someone sent them pinball machine parts instead of real equipment. Certainly Iran couldn't say so without looking foolish and losing face in the Islamic world. In that case the best bet would be to provoke a limited attack, an attack against the nuke sites that would eliminate evidence and galvanize the Islamic world to your side. You wouldn't want to go so far as to get invaded so you'd deny Al Queda was in your country, but you'd want to bluster and really freak out people. Especially the Israeli's. Just a thought. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-12-05 10:13 |
| #4 "A few months. We have a limited time framework for talks." My what an interesting juxtiposition with the ElBaradei comment that they'll have the bomb in 6 months. Any bets on how many months in "a few"? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-12-05 09:28 |
| #3 Yes, we only have a few months left to start saying what they want to hear. |
| Posted by: Ebbineting Glavirong2660 2005-12-05 07:56 |
| #2 This is exactly why they should not have the bomb. They have no patience and will resort to emotional responces. Once they have it we will be face with deadline after deadline so they can have their "Rightfull" whatever. Allowing this has no up side. |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2005-12-05 07:55 |
| #1 Yes, threats are useless now, we only understand loud booms. |
| Posted by: Ebbonter Slitch5293 2005-12-05 02:19 |