IAEA to Report Iran to Security Council

[maddezmom]

VIENNA, Austria - The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency agreed Saturday to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council over suspicions it might want nuclear arms.

The decision by the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board sets the stage for future action by the top U.N. body that could include economic and political sanctions.

Still, any such moves were weeks if not months away, with two permanent council members — Russia and China — agreeing to referral only on condition that no council action be taken until at least March.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran_65

feels like deja vu and the run-up to war with Iraq.

[stevedeshazer]

1. Russia and China?

Last time, it was France and Germany.

How long before we start hearing about "Freedom Vodka" and "Freedom Water Torture"?

[Akoto]

11. LOL. Or, as Jon Stewart says ...

We don't say torture, we say "Freedom Tickle".

[allemand]

2. Iran says it will `immediately` resume uranium enrichment (AP)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/ShTickers.html

In response to the IAEA vote, the head of the Iranian delegation to the IAEA said Tehran has little choice but to immediately resume its uranium enrichment program in accordance with a law passed by parliament.

The Iranians also announced that it is no longer allowing UN inspectors to perform surprise checks at its nuclear facilities. Tehran will, however, permit continued visits by inspectors so long as they are planned in advance.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/678518.html

[Wilms]

3. Wonder how big a coalition of the willing we'll pull together this time. n

[maddezmom]

4. looks like Germany is on board this time around

Merkel likens Iranian president to Hitler
Sat Feb 4, 2006 05:47 AM ET

MUNICH (Reuters) - Chancellor Angela Merkel likened hardline Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler on Saturday, saying the world must act now to stop him before his country developed a nuclear bomb.
"We want, we must prevent Iran from developing its nuclear program further," Merkel told top policymakers from around the world in a speech to the annual Munich security conference.

Referring to the rise of Hitler in the 1930s, Merkel added: "Now we see that there were times when we could have acted differently. For that reason Germany is obliged ... to make clear (to Iran) what is permissible and what isn't."

Europe and the United States suspect Iran of planning to build nuclear weapons. Tehran says its nuclear program is purely for civilian energy purposes.



more:http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=11097513&src=rss/worldNews

[Maddy McCall]

6. Oh, he'll get his coalition.

He certainly will. European leaders will support him on this one. An Iranian rocket trajectory range is a lot closer to Madrid than it is to DC.

[Maddy McCall]

5. Sad thing is, this is where war in the ME should have started, if there...

was going to be war. Now we are overextended in Iraq, and our dork prez has decided that Iran was the threat after all.

Maybe Bush'll just get tired of the Saddam trial (Hell, no one's watching it anyway) and send him back to Baghdad to rule, and then Bush can just funnel US forces into Iran.

Goddam this is just pitiful. If anyone ever wanted to know what it would be like to live under a sleepwalking president, well, this is it.


:(

[TheVirginian]

7. This is huge news. Why is this not higher up?

[Mr_Spock]

46. Because we're not all RW warhawks like you

Everything you do here supports MORE war. How's George doing anyway?

[Heewack]

8. With Russia and China onboard

Iran will be backed into a corner. I'm guessing they will back down as the deadline approaches.

[TheVirginian]

9. I hope so...

But there's been nothing in the last year to suggest that would be the case.

[truth2power]

10. Could someone please clarify this for me? About the IAEA..

If the real reason Bushco is pushing for war with Iran is the planned opening of the oil bourse (which I believe to be thew case), then why are Baradei and the IAEA getting onboard with referring Iran to the Security Council?

Why are they and other European nations complicit in promoting what is sure to be a replay of the carnage we've already seen in Iraq? Is no one able to stand up to the US? Are they all being threatened or blackmailed?

[Heewack]

12. IMO

It has absolutely nothing to do with the oil bourse and everything to do with concern about what he have been witnesseing over the past few months and that is these bold threats from Iran. Those threats would carry a bit more weight if they had a nuke and I think the world sees that as impossible to allow. It would also negate the credibility of the NPT. The U.S. doesn't have to threaten them. They all can see pretty clearly that having a nuclear armed Iran in that region with its radical leadership is a lose-lose scenario.

[HuffleClaw]

15. hmmm

the afgahn invasion was over an oil pipeline, iraq was about stealing their oil, but iran is about nukes? not hardly. this 'threat' is a smokescreen, and one yeaaaars away from fruition anyways, but to listen to bush and co., one would be led to believe iran is about to build nukes tomorrow. this is a manufactured 'crisis', and the rhetoric and propaganda about it isn't even orginal but merely the same tired recycled crap we heard about iraq.

[TheVirginian]

37. Except that...

Every single nation in the world agrees that a nuclear Iran is a threat, and their rhetoric is dangerous.

Every nation, that is, except Cuba, Syria, and Venezuela.

Hopefully, the U.S. will elect a President that aligns with your views, and the U.S. will form a strong partnership with Cuba, Syria, and Iran, and oppose the tyrannical actions of Britian, France, Russia, Canada, Austrailia, India, China, Japan, and Germany. That would ensure peace on earth.

[oblivious]

39. "Every single nation in the world" - what utter nonsense!

[TheVirginian]

43. You're right.

Every nation except Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela.

[oblivious]

47. About 25% of the IAEA council did not vote for it.

Those countries represent the 116-member non-aligned movement (out of 191 members of the UN) which has consistently stated its support for Iran's peaceful nuclear program.

Egypt voted only because the IAEA slipped the clause in about the goal of a nuclear-free middle east - not a bad move on their part.

The NAM got this resolution watered down so much that it means very little, despite Iran's pathetic negotiation tactics.

Everyone's decided to let this go, waiting to fight another day. The March meeting is the big one.

[rayofreason]

14. The world is threatened, alright,...

...by the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran. That is what is driving the IAEA resolution.

Also, see my post #13.

(Edited for spelling)

[Charles19]

35. Bushco can't go to war with Iran

They will however be as annoying and destructive to them as possible without taking action against them.

Why won't they take action? Because if they did Iran will attack Israel and in the matter of a few weeks you might have 5 or more countries over there pulled into a war. Then after that it is unpredictable. Bushco know they can't go into a completely unpredictable situation that could drive oil up to 200 dollars a barrel and cripple the world economy.

Even if they did take action they would have no guarantee whatsoever they would set back Irans nuclear program. Iran can also rocket all the U.S. bases in Iraq. Insurgents in Iraq could then attack the bases and overthrow the green zone gov't of Iraq.

So this is just Buscho being as annoying as possible to Iran to appease the neo-cons. No military action will be taken.

[rayofreason]

13. How did they vote on the resolution?

Here is the list of the 35 countries on the IAEA board-

Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Libya, Norway, Portugal, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela, and Yemen.

27 countries voted for the resolution.

Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa abstained.

Syria, Cuba and Venezula voted against the resolution.

So Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are aligning themselves with Iran, ruled by Jew-hating lsamic fundamentalists who celebrate suicide bombing and martyrdom, oppress religious minorities and women, have lowered the age of consent to 9 (in emulation of Mohammed who married a 9 year-old girl!), and who look forward to the day when they can "wipe Israel off the map". What lovely company. All they need to do is invite the DPRK, then they can really paartay!

Those who obstruct and oppose attempts by the world community to deal with Iran on this issue are exhibiting the height of irresponsibility, and should be condemned for such irresponsibility.


For more information ---
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4680294.stm

[jpak]

16. LOL!!!!

neocon much????

How many innocent Iranians are going to die in this fucking war????

[rayofreason]

21. Do you disagree with the IAEA...

...action to refer Iran to the UNSC?

If so, why?

[truth2power]

24. Actually, I disagree. I can't speak for jpak..

Why? This whole thing stinks of more BFEE warmongering. They don't even bother to get new material. Same old excuses.

All Bush, Cheney and Rice know how to do is go around the world bullying and making demands of sovereign nations and then they wonder why their leaders come out fighting and making stupid threats.

And I still think it's the bourse.

[rayofreason]

25. So the 27-3 vote...

...doesn't matter to you. The months of frustrated diplomacy by the Europeans means nothing.

The world as a whole recognizes there is a problem. I'll go with the IAEA on this one.

[truth2power]

34. thank you for mentioning that. That was my original question

#10 above. Not to be hard-headed, but I'm trying to figure out the real significance of everybody climbing onboard.

Yes, maybe it's because they all believe Iran is going to have their first nuke built by next Tuesday.

OR...maybe Kindasleezy has been out there twisting arms and breaking legs, so to speak. Bullying everyone into submission (which is the only thing she does well, IMO). Which makes the reason for referring, moot.

OR...(and this is my theory) it really is only about the bourse, and other countries are worried that once that market goes online, the world economy is likely to be negatively affected. Big-time. 'Course, I've read that there's maybe some work-arounds for this, where everybody could benefit, but that would require diplomacy and cooperation and finesse. Unfortunately, the Cabal doesn't DO diplomacy etc. So we're gonna get death and destruction instead. Shit!

[oblivious]

40. I disagree completely. It is counterproductive and very dangerous.

During the 80s and 90s, Iran was breaking the rules, working on nuclear power in secret. The US in 2002 demanded that it be transparent and open its program to IAEA inspections. It finally did that in 2003 and has gone even further than the NPT requires to build confidence that it's program is for civilian use only. So now that the IAEA is inside, supervising all activities, with permission to make suprise inspections, the IAEA does something absolutely foolhardy like this encouraging Iran and perhaps other countries that there is no benefit working under the supervision of the IAEA. Now Iran is theatening to work without IAEA supervision.

Great work boys.

[truth2power]

17. Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, coincidentially,

also have something to fear from our mad monkey king. If I were Almadinejad, I'd be looking for nukes, too. Given what happened to Iraq, who had none.

As far as wiping Israel off the map...so innocent Iranian citizens, including their children, should be maimed and killed because their leader makes stupid, bellicose and insane statements?

If that's the case then all Americans deserve to die, because our Resident Lunatic and his puppeteer make hateful, insane statements all the time. For example, threatening to "Nuke" Iran. That would constitute wiping them off the map, I suppose.

[Pavulon]

18. You mean Chirac?

He has made direct threats to do just that.

[truth2power]

22. I was thinking of Cheney.

Sorry. I can see it wasn't clear.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html

[rayofreason]

23. It was Chirac...

...who threatened to send the Force de Frappe flying. And no one should doubt the French willingness to do that if they feel the need to do so.

If you want to sit back, let Iran develop nukes, and let Ahmadinejad make good on his threats, so be it. I am against that kind of irresponsibility, and I support the IAEA action.

[truth2power]

29. Did you see my link??

Yes, Chirac is doing some saber-rattling, too. Here:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/20/france.chirac.nuclear.ap/

But cheney has come right out and said if there's a terrorist attack in the US, we'll just nuke Iran, even if they're not involved. Here's the link, again:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html

"As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."

Jeebus!! He's a lunatic. Cheney needs to be put on some heavy-duty meds. Talk about being a danger to self or others!! And how could anyone fault Iran for wanting to beg, borrow or steal any nuclear weapons they could get their hands on, given this idiocy from the US.

We are the most paranoid nation on earth. Our people go without health care, our infrastructure is falling into ruin, and our public schools are on life-support, but we keep building more and more and more...and more hideous weapons to protect us from our "enemies".

Christ!! We can already destroy the entire planet. It's insane! And if other countries want to protect themselves from the VERY REAL threat we present, then we go berzerk. :banghead:

And your statement, "If you want to sit back, let Iran develop nukes, and let Ahmadinejad make good on his threats, so be it." sounds a lot like Colin Powell, holding up that little vial of sugar or whatever at the UN. Talking about waiting for the mushroom cloud.

Yeah...Been there. Done that. Sorry.

[Wabbajack]

19. Anyone have the exact vote?

Which counrties voted which way?

[rayofreason]

20. See post #13

[Wabbajack]

38. Thanks NT

[phusion]

26. this is absolutely fucking nuts

I think the countries that voted for this are foolishly believing that the US administration will try to resolve this without an all out war.

Un-Fucking-Believable!

Hello WW3.

[Fredda Weinberg]

27. John Kerry says Iran is playing a silly game

but I wonder - does anyone have a strategy if Iran, like Iraq, decides to simply accept sanctions?

So I left the question at his website. If John McCain can come out with a statement and look presidential saying nothing but all options remain open - can't he do better?

[Behind the Aegis]

28. Maybe somebody knows.

If Iran is sent to the IAEA, doesn't it mean they can withdraw from the NPT?

[truth2power]

31. Now that you mention it..

isn't civilian use of nuclear power not a violation of the NPT?

[phusion]

32. correct

and the "seals" were *voluntarily* placed on the Iranian processing equipment by the Iranians themselves.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. Civilian use is not a violation.

If I remember correctly. However, I seem to remember somewhere (here maybe), that if Iran is sent to the IAEA, than can leave the NPT. As I was typing, I remembered, it is not being sent to the IAEA, it is if she is sent to the UN Security Council, Iran would have the option of leaving the NPT.

Anyone know if that is correct?

[oblivious]

41. Do you mean sent to the SC? There's a difference between report and refer.

And no they can't withdraw from the NPT, but their argument is, since they are complying with the terms of the NPT and they still get referred to the SC for sanctions, what's the point of trying to follow international law. It's become a sad joke.

[lovuian]

30. everybody is delaying and delaying!!! the UN isn't going

to do anything... how much ya wanna bet..

[rayofreason]

36. Got to give the UN a chance to work this...

...even if one is not optimistic.

For once the world community seems to be heading in the same direction.

[oblivious]

42. China, Russia and India are holding their fire. March is the important one

Then we'll see if the US really has any power and influence left.

[bemildred]

44. Reasons behind reporting Iran to SC not sufficient: S African envoy

South Africa believes that in the absence of a definitive assessment by the IAEA on the implementation by the Islamic Republic of Iran of its NPT Safeguards Agreement with the Agency, the Board of Governors cannot now consider referring a report or reports to the Security Council, it was announced here Saturday.

A statement issued by Governor of the Republic of South Africa at the special meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors on the implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Safeguards Agreement in Iran and related board resolutions in Vienna on Saturday, Abdul Samad Minty, said the reports by the director general on the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, has shown a positive and continuing trend of cooperation by the country with the agency.

It is recognized that as a result of the corrective actions taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran, the agency is able to clarify many, but regrettably not yet all of the outstanding issues, it noted.

The best approach is for the Board to adopt decisions by consensus that would reinforce the work of the Agency and create a climate conducive to resolve the outstanding issues pertaining to the Islamic Republic of Iran's peaceful nuclear program, it said reiterating that South Africa places a great importance on the role, authority, impartiality and integrity of the agency and we would not wish to do anything that would reduce or undermine its solemn responsibilities.

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0602050172172624.htm

[bemildred]

45. Pakistan: Oppose 'Use Of Power' Vs Iran In Nuclear Row

ISLAMABAD (AP)--Pakistan opposes any "use of power" against Iran to settle the dispute over its nuclear program, Pakistan's chief government spokesman said Saturday.

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed made the comment shortly after the International Atomic Energy Agency decided to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council. The agency expressed concern in a resolution saying that the nuclear program may not be "exclusively for peaceful purposes."

"We are against any use of power against Iran over its nuclear issue, and this has been our policy," Ahmed told The Associated Press.

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2006020413590000&Take=2