| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran's President Cancels U.N. Appearance |
| 2007-03-24 |
| UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has canceled his trip to New York to address the U.N. Security Council before a vote on whether to impose further sanctions against his country for refusing to stop enriching uranium, the Foreign Ministry spokesman said Friday. Mohammed Ali Hosseini, the spokesman, told Iranian state television that the trip was scrapped because of "America's obstruction in issuing visas" to the Iranian delegation that was to travel to New York. Suppose there will be a denial issued? A diplomat on the Security Council said Ahmadinejad would instead send his deputy foreign minister Saturday to address the Security Council before the vote. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because there had not been an official announcement. I guess there's no need for a denial. I'll bet Ahmanutjob is thinking "We kidnapped the Brits, so the US will obviously kidnap me!" Mohammad Mir Ali Mohammadi, press secretary of Iran's mission at the U.N., told The Associated Press the U.S. did not deliver a visa to the U.S. Embassy in Bern, Switzerland, in time for the Iranian president to pick it up before for the council session Saturday. Why don't you have your a$$-kisser go get them instead? He said Russia and China were trying to postpone the session until Monday and if the session was put off Ahamdinejad would decide whether to come. Put it off 'til Tuesday for all I care. I'm sure the UN will head the same wrong direction no matter which day it is on. They'll get an extra couple of days of dinners out of it, too! Ahmadinejad had said he wanted to address the Security Council before it takes up a draft resolution seeking to pressure Iran to cease uranium enrichment, a process that can make fuel for civilian reactors or fissile material for a nuclear warhead. Or be used to generate electricity for peaceful purposes in a country floating on petroleum reserves. The five veto-wielding members of the Security Council want a vote on the resolution Saturday. However, diplomats said the vote could be delayed because negotiations were continuing in an effort to reach unanimity and give the sanctions more weight. What? They haven't reached unanimity yet? Why? Isn't it obvious enough? "Maybe we will vote tomorrow, maybe not because the priority is to make this vote unanimous," said Maria Zakharova, first secretary of Russia's U.N. mission. And to give Iran a couple more days to think about paying up. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had earlier claimed on Iranian state-run radio that the U.S. government had not issued a visa for Ahmadinejad. Or maybe he noticed that the passports he got didn't have a "Diplomat" stamp in it? :-) But Daniel Wendell, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Switzerland said Ahmadinejad's and other Iranian officials' passports had been handed over in Bern on Friday. Another 31 other passports for support staff were to ready later in the day. The passports would then be taken by courier to Tehran in time for the Iranians to fly to New York. That part was there so Al-Jizz would have something to conveniently leave out, I'm sure. Zarif told reporters "the visas for (Ahmadinejad's) crew were not ready yet." Forgot the ones for the ball-licker and the tinfoil hat folder? The United States says Iran's nuclear efforts are cover for a weapons program, but Tehran insists it only wants electricity. So what's all the fuss about? Get rid of 90% of those centrifuges and we'll talk! In December, the Security Council voted unanimously to impose limited sanctions on Iran, ordering all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs and to freeze assets of 10 key Iranian companies and 12 individuals related to those programs. Darn! Now they'll have to get Euros to pay for operations straight from the Iranian government! Iran responded by announcing an expansion of its enrichment program. Ahmadinejad has remained defiant and asked to speak to the Security Council just before it votes on the new draft resolution. As long as those words are something like "You can't arrest me, I have a 'Diplomat' stamp in my passport!", I'm OK with it. The new sanctions would ban Iranian arms exports and freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. About a third of those are linked to the Revolutionary Guard, an elite military corps. Hell, make the paperwork easier and freeze all of Iran's assets. Several non-permanent members of the Security Council have resisted the draft resolution, agreed upon last week by the five council powers—the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France—along with Germany. Who? In an effort to overcome their concerns, Russia proposed a compromise Friday over a proposal by Indonesia and Qatar calling for the Middle East to be free of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. Including such an appeal could have implications for Israel, a U.S. ally widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, though it has never officially acknowledged it. Israel is in the Mid East, but I get the idea. Does it come along with a non-aggression clause to keep the dogs off of Israel? The Russian proposal would include a recognition that "a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would contribute global non-proliferation efforts, including those in the Middle East." Now they figure it out! What happened, Pootie? France and Britain approved of the wording, while the United States was considering it, said Axel Crau, a spokesman for France's U.N. mission. France approved? I'm suddenly skeptical. "It's definitely a key point and probably the key to unanimity," Crau said. Does it include the words "Severe Consequences"? He said the resolution's co-sponsors—France, Germany and Britain—still wanted to call a vote Saturday but may delay it to seek consensus. "For the sake of unanimity we are willing to make some efforts because unanimity has a value," he said. Consensus, eh? Better go get a couple more barrels of water to add to the agreement. Alejandro Wolff, the acting U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said the nuclear debate should not be affected by the Iranian seizure of 15 British sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf Friday. Could you please clarify your comments by specifying which country you are addressing, Mr Wolff? |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #11 thought experiment, or speculation; since 2006 I've read reports that the dinnerJacket was on the outs with certain factions, both ultra and moderate. Think it's possible that some AS$$atollah Quds peckerwood ordered an Admiral to snatch these Brits without consultations with the dinnerJacket? |
| Posted by: RD 2007-03-24 20:59 |
| #10 Dinnerjacket cancelled because he was afraid that we would take HIM hostage. [/I wish] |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2007-03-24 19:01 |
| #9 1. Imanutjob aint coming over, cause he knows they'll lose the vote, so why be humiliated? 2. The sanctions, though not exactly killer santions, are substantive, and take things a couple of baby steps beyond the first sanctions res. More importantly they establish the principle that as long as Iran enriches Uranium, we ratchet up sanctions every two months. How long it will take to boil this frog, I dont know. 3. The folks keeping it from being unanimous are South Africa, Indon, and Qatar. The latter two to avoid looking to pro-Israel, and RSA to basically throw some weight around. Indon and Qat will be bought off with a reference to an old res calling for a nuke free mideast (since most of the region wont sit down with Israel to negotiate that, its a red herring) RSA Im sure will get some commas inserted, or the like, to save face. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-03-24 15:49 |
| #8 Steve and Shipman, I'll give you 8-1 odds Almond jihad was behind it. The last time we tried to work with "Moderate Iranian Mullahs" we got played for a fool. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2007-03-24 15:42 |
| #7 Or, another possiblility is the old left hand don't know what the right hand is doing scenario I lay new odds of 8-1 that you're right. Someones trying to trip up MA. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-03-24 15:15 |
| #6 Why is "UNanimity" such a big value? When someone is wrong, dead wrong, what is the value of changing your position so much as to include the wrong one? wouldn't it always, by necessity, make your position wrong, too? and send the message to the irrational party that they can keep sabotaging everything because "unanimity" is more important to you than facts, reason, liberty, and life? I think "unanimity" as a value is a recipe for failure and death. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-03-24 12:50 |
| #5 Hmm, I would have given 6-1 the Brits end up as human shields at some reactor complex. Or, another possiblility is the old left hand don't know what the right hand is doing scenario. Maybe Almondinejihad is thinking "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-03-24 11:55 |
| #4 help help we're being oppressed |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-03-24 11:53 |
| #3 Maybe he's a bit nervous about leaving the zip code right now. |
| Posted by: JAB 2007-03-24 11:37 |
| #2 I would have given 4-1 that he was going to come here and announce the release of the Brits. Ima think he's screwed up big-time. Now it Smellz like sabotage, losing control maybe. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-03-24 11:15 |
| #1 Cancel the fumigator... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-03-24 09:59 |