Iran Threatens to Block Nuke Inspections

[kpete]

(Sound familiar? Kpete)

Jan 13, 8:07 AM EST

Iran Threatens to Block Nuke Inspections

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer


TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran threatened on Friday to block inspections of its nuclear sites if confronted by the U.N. Security Council over its atomic activities. The hard-line president reaffirmed his country's intention to produce nuclear energy.

France, Britain and Germany quickly responded that they were not demanding sanctions against Tehran just yet.

On Thursday the three countries, backed by the United States, said that nuclear talks with Iran had reached a dead end after more than two years of acrimonious negotiations and the issue should be referred to the Security Council.

However, they refrained from calling on the 15-nation council to impose sanctions and said they remained open to more talks.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=JRC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-01-13-08-07-57

[Waya]

1. Oh, dang.....

...where have we heard this before? I'm getting visions of Iraq.......

[still_one]

2. I have a general question

on what basis does any country have to tell any other country they cannot have nuclear weapons?

I am not saying countries should have nuclear weapons, but I am curious what is the justification to tell a country they cannot deal in a nuclear program

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. "on what basis"

On the basis of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a party, the United Nations has the right to sanction them if they believe they are not in compliance.

[leveymg]

4. yes and no. Iran has a right to produce nuclear fuel under the NPT

What they're doing now -- uranium enrichment -- is well within the NPT, which allows countries to produce their own nuclear fuel rods.

Iran has not violated the NPT, nor can they be legally sanctioned for that by the Int'l Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or the UN. What they did do was to exceed the terms of a letter of understanding with the IAEA concerning the construction of large-scale gas centrifuges used to enrich uranium gas that is a feedstock for production of enriched uranium. That agreement was purely voluntary, and breaking it a couple years ago did not violate international law.

For years, the E-3 (UK, Germany, France) group within the IAEA have been acting as brokers between the US and Iran. The "elections" of Bush and Ahmadinejad, and a shift within the E-3, have forced the issue. Now, we have to deal with Bush, because we can do nothing to force Iran to stop its development of nuclear materials. By all competent military analysis, an attempt to bomb Iran's nuclear installations would set off a generalized Middle-East War with enormous casualties on all sides. In the end, the Iranians would just go back and build their bomb from plentiful local uranium deposits.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Well, this is where it gets complicated.

They have the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes if, and only if they meet certain conditions. I believe those conditions are defined in a way that is intentionally vague in order to give the UN a bit of maneuvering room when it comes to these things. I think it's highly likely that Iran will be referred to the security council for failing to make its operations "transparent" to the nuclear watchdogs' satisfaction. It gets even more complicated from there once you take into account Iran's agreements outside of the NPT. To make a long story short, I'm pretty sure that they're going to find one or more reasons to refer them to the security council, and there's certainly the will within the security council to do something about Iran. Their few allies seem to be fast turning towards a diplomatic solution.

[tedzbear]

6. What sanctions could the UN enforce?

And if "transparency" is the issue here, is the solution of choice going to be weapons inspectors a la Iraq, followed by military intervention a la Iraq?

I just can't see the chimp's minions bombing Iran without UN authorization. They did it before with dire results, and for them to do it again would be folly.

Of course, a real war with Iran would offer Rumsfeld the chance to reinstate the draft. I know he and the Pentagon would find that attractive.

On the other hand, bombing Iran and the consequences would probably lead to gas rationing at the pumps a la 1973.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. At some point, I think the real solution...

And if "transparency" is the issue here, is the solution of choice going to be weapons inspectors a la Iraq, followed by military intervention a la Iraq?

Some sort of oversight would have to be in the cards, I think. The problem is that the discussion had already moved past that point, and now we've gone backwards.


I just can't see the chimp's minions bombing Iran without UN authorization. They did it before with dire results, and for them to do it again would be folly.

There's only one situation where I can see the US bombing Iran: to prevent Israel from doing it first. Israel bombing Iran would be a political catastrophe on a worldwide scale. The US bombing Iran would be bad, but not that bad.



Of course, a real war with Iran would offer Rumsfeld the chance to reinstate the draft. I know he and the Pentagon would find that attractive.

Even I don't think they're that politically suicidial.

[leveymg]

7. China will veto. Russia may abstain. It takes a single dissenting vote

to block UNSC enforcement actions.

Nobody wants to set off World War Three (Four?). The Iranians will get their bomb, one way or the other. If we attack Iran preemptively, likely that will occur sooner rather than later. During the past six decades, we have lived with the bombs built by the Russians, then the British, French, Chinese, Israelis, Indians, Pakistanis, South Africans, and most recently, the North Koreans. We will have to learn how to live with the Iranian bomb, as well, at some point in the future.

The emerging crisis with Iran over its nascent nuclear program is theater, largely conducted for domestic political gain by the Bush Administration. The actual use of military force against Iran is not in the interests of the United States or its allies. To pursue this public display of brinksmanship in an environment of growing international instability is worse than futile as it risks our national security. This can not be tolerated, nor will it be.

What the Bush Administration is doing is irresponsible in the extreme, and extreme measures are called for to prevent the foreseeable outcome of the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East/Persian Gulf regions resulting in unnecessary and preventable casualties to US forces. In addition, aggressive action by the US or Israel against Iran would likely provoke retaliatory strikes against civilian populations within the territorial United States.

After the recent debacle in Iraq, the US military will not again allow itself to be used as a tool of domestic politics or as a scapegoat for the incompetence of this Administration. They will uphold their sworn oath to the Constitution and take all necessary steps to prevent the breakout of such hostilities from actually occurring.

[Walt Starr]

11. China is not bloicking it coming before the UNSC

My fear is that the Busheviks have cut a back door deal for oil to China if they go in.

[Walt Starr]

10. So what, Iran can just pull out of the NNT

The United States set the precedent that it can pull out of and ignore any treaty to which it is a party, after all.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. They may very well do that.

It certainly wouldn't be in their best interest, but they certainly could do it.

[still_one]

13. Thanks, appreciate the information

[newportdadde]

9. Deja-vu.