Iran Earns Scorn of West by Removing Seals


PDA






dasmi
January 10, 2006, 02:59 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/D8F1T2NO3.html
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran

Iran removed seals on its nuclear facilities Tuesday, ending a two- year freeze on work there despite warnings from the United States and other countries concerned about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

The United States rebuked Iran for the move, calling it a step toward creating the material for nuclear bombs. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said the international community was "running out of patience" with Tehran.

Both countries, along with France and Germany, have called on Tehran to cease nuclear activities until an agreement has been reached on the scope of its nuclear program.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Tehran was again in breach of resolutions passed by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog and said steps to restart uranium enrichment could not be justified.

"We are profoundly concerned that Iran has decided to restart research and development activities related to uranium enrichment," Straw said in a statement.

"There was no good reason why Iran should have taken this step if its intentions are truly peaceful and it wanted to resolve long standing international concerns," he added.

Iran announced plans last week to resume research on the production of nuclear fuel, heightening concerns that Tehran was moving toward building atomic weapons. Iran says the research is aimed at generating electricity.

Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, said Tuesday that Iran was not resuming the production of nuclear fuel, a process that would involve uranium enrichment.

"What we resume is merely in the field of research, not more than that," he said at a news conference. "We make a difference between research on nuclear fuel technology and production of nuclear fuel.

"Production of nuclear fuel remains suspended."

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency affixed the seals more than two years ago after Iran agreed to the measure in an effort to dampen suspicions about its nuclear ambitions.

IAEA inspectors were present Tuesday as Iranian officials began removing the seals, spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said from Vienna, Austria, where the agency is based. She declined to say whether the Iranians planned to start enriching uranium or would be satisfied with testing the equipment used in the process.

In Vienna, the chief U.S. representative to the IAEA, Gregory L. Schulte, said that by cutting the seals, Iran had shown "its disdain for international concerns and its rejection of international diplomacy."

"The regime continues to choose confrontation over cooperation, a choice that deepens the isolation of Iran and harms the interests of the Iranian people," he said.

The United States has threatened to bring Iran before the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions if it doesn't cooperate with international mediators.

Whether or not Iran should be referred to the Security Council depends on the outcome of discussions within the IAEA, Blair's spokesman said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to have his name published.

"We are concerned by the reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency," the spokesman said. "Everyone needs to be clear that this does amount to yet another breach of IAEA resolutions."

In Berlin, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Tehran had "crossed lines which it knew would not remain without consequences," adding that he planned to consult with his French and British colleagues on whether there is any basis for more talks with Iran.

Russia, Iran's close ally, also expressed concern that Tehran had removed seals on its nuclear research facilities and called on Iran to maintain its moratorium on enrichment pending negotiations, Russian news agencies reported.

Earlier Tuesday, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said that a Russian delegation had confirmed to Iranian officials that Moscow's offer to jointly enrich Iranian uranium on Russian territory still stands, the Interfax news agency reported.

The proposal, backed by the European Union and the United States, was designed to ease concerns that Iran would use the fuel to build a bomb. Lavrov said Moscow was coordinating its actions with Germany, Britain and France, Interfax reported.

Iran has insisted it would not agree to moving enrichment abroad.

In a foreign policy address Tuesday, French President Jacques Chirac warned Iran it would be committing a "grave error" if it ignored the international community's repeated warnings and pressed ahead with its nuclear program.

___

Associated Press writers Angela Doland in Paris, Judith Ingram in Moscow, Ed Johnson in London and George Jahn in Vienna, Austria, contributed to this report.

If you enjoyed reading about "Iran Earns Scorn of West by Removing Seals" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sleeping Dog
January 10, 2006, 03:17 PM
If Iran wants nuclear weapons, I'm sure Israel will be happy to provide one. Delivered by air, from 30,000 feet. With a nice encouraging message: "Yo! Ayatollah! Research this!"

Our biggest job may be convicing the Israelis not to do that.

Regards

Oleg Volk
January 10, 2006, 03:25 PM
Two of my friends had just travelled to Iran. I would have been miffed if they got caught up in any nukings. How about more localized solutions?

ChiefPilot
January 10, 2006, 03:29 PM
Two of my friends had just travelled to Iran. I would have been miffed if they got caught up in any nukings. How about more localized solutions?

Nobody really want that, but it's a definate possibility given the recent rantings of Iran's president.

dasmi
January 10, 2006, 03:30 PM
The last thing we need is nukes going off in the middle east. No matter where they actually came from, you know that we'll get blamed. That should be our last resort.

c_yeager
January 10, 2006, 03:32 PM
Im sure that all of this chest-thumping by the "international community" will show Iran the error of their ways, and cause them to cooperate with global interests.

Henry Bowman
January 10, 2006, 03:36 PM
Oleg,

I don't think that Israel will (or can) turn all the sand in Iran to glass. They would simply destroy the reactor at issue.

R.H. Lee
January 10, 2006, 03:41 PM
Im sure that all of this chest-thumping by the "international community" will show Iran the error of their ways, and cause them to cooperate with global interests. Chest thumping backed by considerable military power and the will to use it. Ask Saddam.

This is a big mistake on Iran's part. Look for them to be identified as sponsors of insurgency and terrorism in Iraq. That will justify military action in Iran, who has already been named in the 'axis of evil' speech.

Malone LaVeigh
January 10, 2006, 04:45 PM
"Scorn of the West" in one hand, you-know-what in the other. Guess which one fills up faster.

dolanp
January 10, 2006, 05:09 PM
I'm sure Bush will find a way to fit them into his Crusade somehow, sooner or later. Sad though that they are the ones with the real nuclear capability and yet we are playing over in Iraq.

KriegHund
January 10, 2006, 05:32 PM
Ive devolped a thesis.

Iraq>Iran> N. Korea.

Iraq was good practice for Iran. Iran will be good practice for Korea.

or, maybe, well just stick to iraq;)

Nathaniel Firethorn
January 10, 2006, 05:39 PM
http://orientalredneck.blogspot.com/graphics/Polish%20GROM%20and%20Navy%20SEALS%20Iraq.jpg
Somehow, I think Iran is gonna have its hands full trying to remove the SEALs... :D

- NF

Standing Wolf
January 10, 2006, 07:50 PM
The United States rebuked Iran for the move...

Well, I guess we sure showed Iran, didn't we?

rick_reno
January 10, 2006, 08:05 PM
Ive devolped a thesis.

Iraq>Iran> N. Korea.

Iraq was good practice for Iran. Iran will be good practice for Korea.

or, maybe, well just stick to iraq;)

We've won in Iraq - or at least that'll be the story soon. With elections coming up, they need to get that turd out of the punchbowl fast. It'll be a grand victory. After the mid-term elections they'll move on to Iran. I'd forget about N. Korea, it's not a direct threat to Israel and they've got no natural resources that we need.

Optical Serenity
January 11, 2006, 02:56 AM
I think Iran will be a very unfortunate war and LONG one. I don't think we have much of a choice. They are a very dangerous and large problem.

The sad part is, the people there (well over 90% of them) love the U.S. and want to be "liberated."

As it is, there are dozens of demonstrations everyday where the youth are protesting...

beerslurpy
January 11, 2006, 03:47 AM
I have to admit, <it's foolish to aggravate> israel and the united states, at a time when the US has armies to the east and west of your country and a sizeable airforce within 1000 miles of your capitol.

They are pressing all the right buttons, and it is only a matter of time before they get their holes stomped.

About the iranian people welcoming us as liberators, wait until we start bombing them and then jumpy marines move in and start shooting the civilians. Still, fighting iran now is probably better than fighting nuclear iran in 5 years.

Remington788
January 11, 2006, 04:27 AM
Israel will bomb (conventional) the nuke plant in Iran sometime in the next few months. They have to because when a President of a country says that your country should be wiped off the face of the earth and then says that we are going to develop nuclear weapons, what choice do they have. If they don't and Iran builds a bomb, sometime in the future Isreal will get nuked. Also, they have done this in the past.

Jim March
January 11, 2006, 05:10 AM
I can understand removing seals.

I mean, they make that weird barking noise, you gotta keep 'em wet, they need fresh fish, they've got pretty massive teeth...overall pretty annoying.

Gifted
January 12, 2006, 12:12 AM
Israel will bomb (conventional) the nuke plant in Iran sometime in the next few months.Problem with the "conventional" part is that alot of the facilities are underground. you can't get at them with conventional weapons.

proud2deviate
January 12, 2006, 12:31 AM
Does it really matter if Iran persues a nuke program? Seriously, what's one more nuke added to a sea of millions. I dunno, sometimes I just hear a voice saying, "I am the only nation professional enough to have nuclear weapons. . ." Is it not every nation's right to provide for the common defense? How better to defend against an existing nuclear power than by having nukes of your own? Mutual Assured Destruction still works between countries.


And another thing. . .it really bugs when Bush (or anyone, really,) says "Nuke-you-ler" Only one u in the word, folks.

cosine
January 12, 2006, 12:35 AM
and yet we are playing over in Iraq.

Maybe not. Look at a map. Notice which two countries surround Iran? That's right, Afganistan and Iraq. Iraq could be crucial in the future if Bush decides to go after Iran.

Edit: Didn't see the first paragraph in beerslurpy's post.

TexasRifleman
January 12, 2006, 12:43 AM
Mutual Assured Destruction still works between countries.



Not when one country believes to the core that dying in battle results in an express lane to the promised land and all those virgins.

MAD only works when both sides are afraid of dying.

Farnham
January 12, 2006, 12:47 AM
Looks like somebody else noticed that.

Iraq >>> Iran <<< Afghanistan

Think it's coincidence?

S/F

Farnham

cosine
January 12, 2006, 01:33 AM
Looks like somebody else noticed that.

Iraq >>> Iran <<< Afghanistan

Think it's coincidence?

S/F

Farnham

No. And I noticed that months ago.

Lone_Gunman
January 12, 2006, 03:00 AM
Yes, but we have reduced the number of troops in Afghanistan to the point we don't really have control there anymore. Recent news stories I have read (use google to find them, I don't have the time) say that the Taliban is coming back.

Optical Serenity
January 12, 2006, 03:06 AM
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Taliban coming back had something to do with Iran supporting them financially.

StrikeFire83
January 12, 2006, 04:17 AM
For all you people itching to fight another war in the Middle East, JOIN UP and put your money where your mouth is.

The way I see it, another Mid East petroleum war will mean a draft. I’m 22, and couldn’t flee the USA, it’s my home and it’s not in my character to do so. That said, I don’t want to die so that Haliburton can open up another swath of oil fields while we watch gas go past $5 a gallon.

No thanks.

Optical Serenity
January 12, 2006, 04:43 AM
For all you people itching to fight another war in the Middle East, JOIN UP and put your money where your mouth it.

The way I see it, another Mid East petroleum war will mean a draft. Iím 22, and couldnít flee the USA, itís my home and itís not in my character to do so. That said, I donít want to die so that Haliburton can open up another swath of oil fields while we watch gas go past $5 a gallon.

No thanks.

Holy cow, seems like you've been sipping on some Michael Moore kool-aid.

StrikeFire83
January 12, 2006, 04:52 AM
No.

It "seems" that I've lost a friend and have a brother in Western Iraq RIGHT NOW.

People my age are asked to fight the wars that old men start. This has nothing to do with Michael Moore and his idiocy. It just gauls the hell out of me that most of the people pushing for invading Iran, Syria, etc are aging boomers like Dick Cheney for whom "military service was not a priority" during the late 60s and 70s.

Do what you want to with your own skin, but don't tell people what they ought to be doing with theirs.

Kim
January 12, 2006, 05:12 AM
Well alot of those old people fought many a hard war (much worse than IRAQ) so that you were able to be alive and free today. Think about that. ;)

StrikeFire83
January 12, 2006, 05:23 AM
Well alot of those old people fought many a hard war (much worse than IRAQ) so that you were able to be alive and free today. Think about that. ;)

If you're talking about World War II, then yes, I totally agree with you.

If you're talking about Vietnam, while I respect their service, (my uncle is a Vietnam vet) that war was hardly essential to American survival.

proud2deviate
January 12, 2006, 09:04 AM
Not when one country believes to the core that dying in battle results in an express lane to the promised land and all those virgins.

MAD only works when both sides are afraid of dying.

Individuals might believe that, and the boys in charge might foster such beliefs for the sake of moral (if god is with us who could stand against us,) but I sincerly doubt that anyone in charge of a country and it's nuclear stockpile wants to see that country vaporized. A whole country of your very own is the biggest, bestest toy on the market and after you've got one, you'd tend to ensure that it doesn't get blow'd up. If all that needs to happen for your country to not get blow'd up is for you to refrain from blowing up other countries, well then, that's not too much to ask, is it?

Of course, I suppose your classic sociopathic despot might be willing to see his citizens, possessions, wealth and power wiped out of existence for the fun of lobbing one little dimestore nuke at another country, but I doubt it. Their are far better methods of vain glorious suicide.

Complete tangent, but shouldn't Iran have earned the Scorn of the West a long time ago? Isn't it like, one of those axis of evil countries? (you'll forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong. I don't have cable.) Rape, robbery, murder, oppression, torture, that sort of thing? Isn't all that worth a little scorn?

Oleg Volk
January 12, 2006, 09:19 AM
Holy cow, seems like you've been sipping on some Michael Moore kool-aid.

Easy on the insults! Not THR.

HankB
January 12, 2006, 09:58 AM
"Scorn of the West" means absolutely nothing to the mad mullahs running Iran. They're only concerned with what the West will actually do to them - if anything.

A limited military strike by Israel or anyone else will probably not take out their nuke program, much of which has moved underground. They've probably made the calculation that with the US involved in Iraq - and domestic US support for that weak at best - an actual invasion is not likely. So "scorn of the west" just provides useful propaganda for the mullahs to stir things up at home. (Propaganda is essential - from what I've read, the mullahs are none too popular with the under-40 set at home.)

If anyone - US, Israel, whoever - does decide to take action, they should remember an old maxim from either Sun Tzu(?) or Machiavelli(?): Never do an enemy a minor injury.

captain obvious
January 12, 2006, 10:00 AM
Last I heard some of the Iranian Mullas, i.e. the ones cut from the 1979 cloth, were backing away from Ahmadinejad, as he was getting too out of hand for their tastes.

Damn, it takes effort for those guys to say you're nuts.

Master Blaster
January 12, 2006, 11:21 AM
Earlier Tuesday, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said that a Russian delegation had confirmed to Iranian officials that Moscow's offer to jointly enrich Iranian uranium on Russian territory still stands, the Interfax news agency reported.

The proposal, backed by the European Union and the United States, was designed to ease concerns that Iran would use the fuel to build a bomb. Lavrov said Moscow was coordinating its actions with Germany, Britain and France, Interfax reported.


In other news, Fox enterprises, in a new and exciting partnership with Wolf security, is now breaking ground on a new interspecies planned condominium community. The New Units will be made availible at a very affordable rate to all of the sheep and chickens looking for an afforable and secure place to live......

Lets see Russians selling lots of their newest and best anti aircraft missles to Iran....
Germans and French purveyors of fine Nuclear equipment to middle eastern despots.......

And of course the UN......

Yep I"m pretty sure that unless there is a big political change in Iran, the Israelis are gonna have to do some bombing.:mad:

Sindawe
January 12, 2006, 11:50 AM
Yep I"m pretty sure that unless there is a big political change in Iran, the Israelis are gonna have to do some bombingThen let ISRAEL do the bombing and keep us and our military the FRELL OUT OF IT! :fire: Israel may be our closest ally in the region, but its LONG past time for the US to stop being the bigger, older friend that stand behind them while they and their neighbors bristle and square off like two male dogs after the same bitch in heat.

AZ Jeff
January 12, 2006, 02:32 PM
No.
People my age are asked to fight the wars that old men start. This has nothing to do with Michael Moore and his idiocy. It just gauls the hell out of me that most of the people pushing for invading Iran, Syria, etc are aging boomers like Dick Cheney for whom "military service was not a priority" during the late 60s and 70s.

Do what you want to with your own skin, but don't tell people what they ought to be doing with theirs.

That's an interesting (but naive) mentality. The leaders of the country traditionally tend to be the older, more experienced members of the population. Unfortunately, the adults best suited for combat tend to be younger, for obvious reasons.

To suggest that a nation (any nation) should send those so "interested/eager in war", and leave the younger generation "out of the fight" is a pretty naive approach to maintaining a cohesive democratic nation.

c_yeager
January 13, 2006, 11:47 AM
That's an interesting (but naive) mentality. The leaders of the country traditionally tend to be the older, more experienced members of the population. Unfortunately, the adults best suited for combat tend to be younger, for obvious reasons.

To suggest that a nation (any nation) should send those so "interested/eager in war", and leave the younger generation "out of the fight" is a pretty naive approach to maintaining a cohesive democratic nation.

If we were a democratic nation (we arent) we would have pulled our soldiers out of Iraq the moment less than 50% of the population decided that they wanted them there.

It is understandable that we dont want to send our elderly government officials to war. However, answere me this: How many of THEIR children are fighting in Iraq. Both of Bush's children are of suitable military age...

engineer151515
January 13, 2006, 12:05 PM
If we were a democratic nation (we arent) we would have pulled our soldiers out of Iraq the moment less than 50% of the population decided that they wanted them there...........



You're right. We're not. Enjoy your representative republic.


Most folks did not want to help Britian at the start of WWII. FDR covertly did otherwise. Even the US Civil War wasn't "popular" after a couple years of bloody conflict. There were riots in New York against the war. Even the war for Independence in 1776 - in the worst of it General Washington was facing mutiny. As expressed by Thomas Paine:

These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country: but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered. Yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.


Sometimes, the right thing to do isn't the popular decision.

If you enjoyed reading about "Iran Earns Scorn of West by Removing Seals" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!