Iran defends nuclear programme

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Reuters
Thu Jan 27, 2005 09:13 AM GMT

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia (Reuters) - Iran has vowed never to dismantle its uranium enrichment programme, a day after a confidential EU document showed that France, Britain and Germany had told Tehran they would not settle for anything less.
<snip>

Asked whether Iran would dismantle the programme, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Gholamali Khoshroo, who is visiting Malaysia for a meeting of the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference, replied:

"Never. For what reason? We are not terrified by the U.S. We have had this kind of relations with the U.S. for 25 years. We don't want to upgrade tension with U.S. but we want to live as a sovereign country and nobody has the right to threaten others."
<snip>

NO CLEAR EVIDENCE

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog, has been investigating Tehran's nuclear programme for more than two years. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says he has found no clear evidence of a nuclear weapons programme in Iran.
more...
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=661775

[WritersBlock]

1. "Iraq War Buildup - The Sequel: Iran!" (eom)

[lovuian]

2. Talks deadlock over Iran’s nuclear intent

This is the title of the second article on here! I apologize if this is a dupe

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=604945

Israel refuses to rule out attack on Iran
By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
27 January 2005


Israel's Defence Minister refused to rule out a pre-empt-ive strike on Iran yesterday, claiming that Tehran was "close to a point of no return" on its suspected development of a nuclear weapon.

At a meeting with journalists in London, Shaul Mofaz did little to dispel the sense of unease caused by comments last week by the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, who suggested Israel might "decide to act first" to end Iran's nuclear threat.

Mr Mofaz said: "I believe that none of the Western countries can live with Iran having a nuclear capability - not the US, not the European countries and nor other countries."

more...

Its pretty serious because this article came on to

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=40bf98c51062fafb&cat=c08dd24cec417021


Talks deadlock over Iran’s nuclear intent

GEORGE JAHN in Davos January 27 2005

Talks between European powers and Iran are deadlocked on the key issue of uranium enrichment.
Iran is refusing to consider scrapping such programmes even while acknowledging they make no economic sense, according to a confidential document.
The summary of the last meeting involving Britain, France, Germany and Iran states that Tehran intends to maintain its enrichment programme, while the European powers continue to insist on its "cessation" or "dismantlement".
snip...

It says that Iran privately acknowledged what Washington and its allies have argued all along — that, as an oil-rich country, it does not need nuclear energy.
snip...
The summary of the last meeting involving Britain, France, Germany and Iran states that Tehran intends to maintain its enrichment programme, while the European powers continue to insist on its "cessation" or "dismantlement".

[opiate69]

3. Once again, I find myself questioning

Washington's logic:

"... as an oil-rich country, it does not need nuclear energy."

Seems to me, the less they use, the more they can sell... like the old saying goes, the best drug dealers don't use.

[lovuian]

5. What I have been reading is the situation is serious

and Bush is continuing on his agenda. as soon as he was elected

he is going to war... What I want to know will the Republicans blindly follow him into this Holy Crusade!!!

and I can't wait to hear what the Pope says... Since he has been cheering Bush on and his Bishops!!!

I think we are seeing history in the works this reminds me of the early days where Japan and US were negotiating before Pearl Harbor was bombed...

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. The ball is already rolling. Apparently they have decided

to go to war with Iran. The only thing left to do is soften up the public and scare them with talk of a imminent nuclear threat. I expect some kind of hostilities by May.

[mordarlar]

6. they have been desperately working at damaging the credibility of...

ElBaradei of the IAEA. ElBaradei has been a chief thorn in Bush's side as he tries to get justification to go into Iran. It seems not he is simply trying to create an incident to support his agenda. Hopefully Iran will continue to be too wise to take the bait. Otherwise....I dread to think of it.

[makhno]

7. Too early

Maybe sanctions by May, unilateral or UN. War either very early next year or, more likely, after the 2006 elections.

Now, where do I go to place my bet ...

[One_Life_To_Give]

8. Can they wait that long?

I think Iran will have operational nukes before the 06 elections.

[Psephos]

12. * may want war, but there are no soldiers left to conduct it

Nor will there be anytime soon. Rumsfeld said you go to war with the army you have, which also means you don't go to war with the army you don't have.

[Mystified]

9. They're almost begging Bush

To attack them. I don't understand their motivation in continuing to insis that they will not stop their nuclear program under any circumstances. Bush has already shown that he's a deranged idiot and will attack anyone, anywhere, anytime. What does Iran stand to gain from their position?

By the way, I saw the NY Times article. You DU people are a bunch of wackos! (kidding)

[Redstone]

10. I think their motivation is pride

I don't think very highly of the policies of Iran's government (to put it mildly), but I believe they're telling us:

"This is OUR country. Fuck off and leave us alone, you bully."

Remember, these are Persians, very proud people. I suspect that many of them would rather die fighting than roll over and beg us not to attack them.

Redstone

[Mystified]

11. Well...

I understand the issue of national pride and appearing strong on the global stage, but it seems to me it would be better for them to act like they were open to negotiations even if they aren't. But then, I'm no diplomat. Obviously there are other dynamics involved here of which I'm unaware.