Europeans warn Iran

[khompareh]

Tough European warning to Tehran

Iran said the suspension of nuclear activities was only temporary

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier has urged Iran not to resume suspended nuclear operations, warning that to do so would lead to "consequences."

Officials at the UN atomic agency say Iran is backing away from a plan to resume uranium enrichment, which could be used to develop nuclear arms.

A diplomat quoted by the AP news agency said Tehran had been dissuaded from the plan by the European warning.

The consequences are assumed to be action by the UN Security Council.

Iran will definitely resume a part of its enrichment activities in the near future... but we are still discussing its conditions and time of restarting the activities

Hassan Rohani
Chief Iranian negotiator



"We continue to hope that Iran will not take this step, the consequences of which it is well aware," Mr Barnier said.

He said such a move would "be counter to the Paris agreement and resolutions adopted by the IAEA. We want to get this position across to the authorities in Tehran".

Negotiations have been taking place between Iran and three European countries, Britain, France and Germany, to try to agree a way of ensuring that Iran's nuclear programme is entirely peaceful.

'Peaceful purposes'

An Iranian news agency says the country's top nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rohani, has warned that Iran will no longer respect the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if it is prevented from using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

"If Iran cannot exercise its rights with in the framework of the NPT, it will no longer have any respect for this treaty," Mr Rohani said.

Mr Rohani told state television that Iran had received messages from the Europeans, but said the decision to resume work at its Isfahan nuclear plant was definite.

"Iran will definitely resume a part of its enrichment activities in the near future... but we are still discussing its conditions and time of restarting the activities."

'Engineered crisis'

Iran has been saying for the last two weeks that it intends to resume conversion of raw uranium into gas at its Isfahan plant, a move that would give it the capability to produce enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb.

A senior Iranian nuclear negotiator has been sent to the UN agency, the IAEA, in Vienna with a letter.

Some reports say the letter, which has not been delivered, contains formal notification that Iran is about to break United Nations seals on the Isfahan plant.

The breaking of the seals would, correspondents say, signal the collapse of the negotiating process on Iran's nuclear programmes.

The basis of the talks was a promise by Iran to suspend all its nuclear activities, including uranium enrichment.

If that fails there is the prospect of referral to the United Nations Security Council.

Correspondents say that Iran may be engineering a controlled crisis to obtain more concessions in the talks, but Western officials warn that this is misreading the mood in Europe, which is not willing to tolerate Iran violating its agreements.

Iran, however, says it agreed to suspend its nuclear activities only on a short-term basis and on the assumption that negotiations were progressing well.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4540215.stm

 

[Simply Ken]

Iran needs to stop blinking after each threat. By blinking, as the regime hs, Iran gives the US more time and opportunity to bring around more nations allied against Iran, with all of them learning the lesson that Iran can be pushed around. Once they learn that lesson, as they have through the course of Iran's negotiations with the EU, the world community will deflect American pressures by adding pressures on Iran.

The dynamic we need to encourage is for the world community to see Iran is not going to budge, and for them to turn putting pressure on the US instead. The regime needs to make up its mind; either stand firm and don't compromise at all. Or do what Libya did and hope that will be enough.
Anything else, we increase (not decrease) the chances of Iran being torn apart.

 

[soccerr]

Simply Ken,

You need to accept realities, namely that we are not North Korea, nor do we want to be. Ofcourse, the dialogue can be stopped, uranium enrichment can start etc., but that would lead to isolation.

We want to be acknowledged as a "legitimate" nuclear power, and in order to do so, we will have to keep these negotiations going. In my opinion, at this stage it is possible to start the initial stages of uranium enrichment to show our displease with the fact that six months has passed since the negotiations started and nothing has happened from their (european) side. They won't be able to do anything serious if we do.

 

[Simply Ken]

Simply Ken,

You need to accept realities, namely that we are not North Korea, nor do we want to be. Ofcourse, the dialogue can be stopped, uranium enrichment can start etc., but that would lead to isolation.

I don't want Iran to become N.Korea either. But the path we are pursuing will actually increase the chance of such a thing, then the one I suggest.

Iran can make EU and the US to blink. When they do, we can get the deal we deserve for our people. The path of appeasement will, instead, lead to what I suggested: a lesson to the world that each American demand can be met by added demands on Iran.

The ultimate American demands are not the kind of things that can be negotiated. Those demands (not the pretexts) need to change. And they won't in the dynamics right now at play.

Iran needs to make it clear that it is not going to blink anymore. Or it will be made to suffer, slowly but surely, a fate worse than even N.Korea. It will be turned into Iraq circa 1991-2001.

 

[soccerr]

I believe that this nuclear crisis - a controlled crisis as the western media puts it - can be very beneficial to increase the participation rate in the coming elections and make people inside Iran aware, and thus increase nationalist sentiments.

Therefore, I believe starting the initial stages (and not full enrichment) would be beneficial at this point. This is probably how they have calculated in Tehran as well.

I don't think the EU/U.S. are stupid enough to think they can keep a country like Iran back from pursuing such things as mastering the nuclear fuel cycle - that's too late anyway, because we already do.

They are just trying to delay it, and to seek their best to extract concessions from Iran.

I have maintained that direct talks to the U.S. is the optimal way, instead of going through EU, Russia etc. which always will lead to insecurity.

 

[Simply Ken]

I believe that this nuclear crisis - a controlled crisis as the western media puts it - can be very beneficial to increase the participation rate in the coming elections and make people inside Iran aware, and thus increase nationalist sentiments.

Yes. And more than that. It is also forcing the regime to become more sensible in some of its policies. As long as it tries to avert the pressures by looking to solidy its domestic base, the crisis can have good repercussions for Iran.

Therefore, I believe starting the initial stages (and not full enrichment) would be beneficial at this point. This is probably how they have calculated in Tehran as well.

I am not worried about whether we immediately begin to actually enrich uranium. Or whether instead we start the UF6 project alone, although I prefer the former course.

The main point is that the dynamics have to change. The current dynamics see the rest of the world learning that the best way to deflect American pressures, is to put pressure on Iran to meet American demands. And those demands aren't going to be satisfied as easily as you think.

I don't think the EU/U.S. are stupid enough to think they can keep a country like Iran back from pursuing such things as mastering the nuclear fuel cycle - that's too late anyway, because we already do.

Right now, the real US plan is to "tear Iran apart" from within and without. There is no compromise that will satisfy the US, precisely because what Iran has already mastered cannot be "unmastered".

The short term objective for the US is to buy time, while it gets all its docks in order to launch its plans against Iran. Those plans aren't secret and they will not be delayed when the time is ripe to set them in motion.

I have maintained that direct talks to the U.S. is the optimal way, instead of going through EU, Russia etc. which always will lead to insecurity.

Eventually, Iran has to negotiated with the US. And reach a deal it could have reached when Clinton was in power. But right now Iran needs to first make sure US plans and policies are changed as they relate to Iran, because the current plans by the US leave no room for real negotiations.

 

[shahinc]

Forget politics and lets focus on economic

In order to build a good economy, in order to rescue Iran, we need to have a good relation with the rest of the world.

World is moving toward GLOBALIZATION and you can not have a healthy economic without having a healthy relationship and healthy trade agreement with the rest of thr world.

Iran needs to work closely with European countires to prove to them and rest of the world that his nuclear intentions are "PURE " and is not looking to develope bombs.

Ba gardan kolofti va shakhe shone pahn kardan for Europe and US we will not get any where. ( last 26 years are great examples)

We have the right to "PEACEFULL NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY" and we should get it with peacefullnegotiations.

 

[deerouz]

I posted a response on another thread, but thought I would copy here too. Sorry for wasting the bandwidth

This whole nuclear crisis is not about weapons, in my opinion. It is more about Iran's position as a future player in nuclear technology market. If Iran completes the fuel production cycle, with the current uranium resources in Yazd and Guilan Iran could become an exporter of nuclear fuel and technology.

The world is rightly concerned, not about a possible nuclear attack by IRI against Israel or the US (which would never happen), but because they are worried Iran might start selling the technology and weapons in the market to any third world country that comes along the way. The same way that Pakistan did. This is the same concern about North korea, not that NK would just shoot a missile into Tokyo! Imagine two poor african countries getting involved in a dispute and each bombed others' cities with nuclear weapons bought from Iran and NK.

The world powers want to keep the nuclear club as closed/limited as possible, and their reasons are self-serving but in my opinion still beneficial to the world in the long run.

 

[soccerr]

The main point is that the dynamics have to change. The current dynamics see the rest of the world learning that the best way to deflect American pressures, is to put pressure on Iran to meet American demands. And those demands aren't going to be satisfied as easily as you think.

Please explain what you mean by "current dynamics".

But right now Iran needs to first make sure US plans and policies are changed as they relate to Iran, because the current plans by the US leave no room for real negotiations.

I disagree with you here. You are basing your discussion on the assumption that there is one type of people inside Washington, which is utterly wrong. There is a variety of different people, but for the people whom we need as discussion partners - Clinton's type - there is a necessity to show to the U.S. that we are ready to behave responsibly, and more importantly, that it is in the interests of the U.S. to cooperate with us, rather than trying to weaken us etc.

For that to happen, you have to start direct negotiations. The fact of the matter is that right now, we are discussing with the americans. The problem is that we are doing so through others, instead of directly. Our problems will not be solved until we are sitting at the negotiating table with the U.S. on the other side. That's my assessment.

 

[Oldman]

Ba dorood:

The pressure by US will not encourage elecshow participation.

Badbakhti, GW can have more votes in Iran than in USA. Do not believe me then contact people in Iran.

I spoke with two active students and they surprised (more like shocked) me when they said, ANYONE!!!!

I explained that removal of Mullahs is much easier THAN removal of Western control though the latter would make the AABRANG brighter but in long run, IT IS NOT HEALTHY!

 

[Simply Ken]

Please explain what you mean by "current dynamics".

Europe is under its own pressures from the US. It has two ways to react to those pressures: lobby hard to change US policy on Iran. Or to deflect the pressure on Iran by becoming a conduit for American demands, as Iran blinks each time.

The more Europe is successfull pressuring Iran to blink, the more Europe (and the rest of the world) will learn that by pressuring Iran, they can deflect American pressures. If Iran stands firm, on the other hand, Europe will have to choose between trying to change US policy -- or seeing the US pursue policy Europe does not support either.

In the short term, the dynamics have already increased the cost for Iran when we say "No". Already, Europe and even Russia have made certain promises to the US. But if they really see Iran refusing to budge, even after they look very "serious" with their threats, they will change their tune.

I disagree with you here. You are basing your discussion on the assumption that there is one type of people inside Washington, which is utterly wrong.

My assumption is that US foreign policy today is guided under the influence of a neoconservatives, with an ideological underpinning that seeks to bring the Middle East region under direct and indirect US control. And to defang any country that might achieve such power to stand in America or Israel's way.

While not everyone in the US agrees with that agenda, I am afraid that is the agenda that is in vogue in this administration. Indeed, for various domestic reasons (including the influence of pro-Israeli groups in the Democratic party, which makes the latter not fully capable to stand up to a project that is seen as helping Israel), it is an agenda that its opponents have not been to counter.

 

[soccerr]

Europe is under its own pressures from the US. It has two ways to react to those pressures: lobby hard to change US policy on Iran. Or to deflect the pressure on Iran by becoming a conduit for American demands, as Iran blinks each time.

The more Europe is successfull pressuring Iran to blink, the more Europe (and the rest of the world) will learn that by pressuring Iran, they can deflect American pressures. If Iran stands firm, on the other hand, Europe will have to choose between trying to change US policy -- or seeing the US pursue policy Europe does not support either.

In the short term, the dynamics have already increased the cost for Iran when we say "No". Already, Europe and even Russia have made certain promises to the US. But if they really see Iran refusing to budge, even after they look very "serious" with their threats, they will change their tune.

This is a good analysis and I agree with it. That's why I believe starting the parts of enrichment is a test, which we can take further if the EU does not quickly act upon our demands.

My assumption is that US foreign policy today is guided under the influence of a neoconservatives, with an ideological underpinning that seeks to bring the Middle East region under direct and indirect US control. And to defang any country that might achieve such power to stand in America or Israel's way.

While not everyone in the US agrees with that agenda, I am afraid that is the agenda that is in vogue in this administration. Indeed, for various domestic reasons (including the influence of pro-Israeli groups in the Democratic party, which makes the latter not fully capable to stand up to a project that is seen as helping Israel), it is an agenda that its opponents have not been to counter.

The neocons are certainly influental BUT the reason you don't hear several voices from the U.S. officially is because they have a well-structured system in which the RULING party/grouping is allowed to perform its policies, and all others have to abide.

Whereas in Iran, everyone will speak their opinion and the divisions and weaknesses are made easily visible.

If we had a good political structure and always spoke with one voice, it would look as if we also had one standpoint.

The divisions within the U.S. administartion, between the White House, Pentagon, CIA, NSA etc. are deep and Iran should spend alot of time mapping and analyzing these weaknesses and divisions.

The fact that the megaphones are in the hands of the neocons at present does not mean they are in majority or alone. I would believe there is a great majority favoring engagement with Iran, as recommended by most experts groups.

 

[Simply Ken]

The divisions within the U.S. administartion, between the White House, Pentagon, CIA, NSA etc. are deep and Iran should spend alot of time mapping and analyzing these weaknesses and divisions.

The fact that the megaphones are in the hands of the neocons at present does not mean they are in majority or alone. I would believe there is a great majority favoring engagement with Iran, as recommended by most experts groups.

Outside some experts who hold no real political influence, there is no politically powerful voice that would stand against the agenda against Iran. I am not referring to taking military action against Iran, which does have its opponents. Instead, I am talking abotu the agenda that seeks diplomatic isolation of Iran, economic sanctions through the UN, and encouraging internal problems for Iran. Those kind of policies can bring together the same coalition that supported keeping sanctions on Iraq.

Indeed, to give the opponents of the neocons some ammunition, Iran does need to show that it is not bending to threats and pressures all the time. Otherwise, why "engage" Iran if the US is getting its way by being a bully?

 

[soccerr]

We need to stop looking at these issues emotionally.

The U.S. (and any other imperial superpower at any point in history), EU, etc. ofcourse want to keep their superiority - technologically, economically and politically - in place, and therefore they will act tough on newcomers, and especially newcomers that diverge too much from their policies (which Iran does).

This we cannot stop, no matter how hard we try.

What we can, and should, do is to stop giving the neocons ammunition. This can be done by freeing political prisoners, press freedom, normalizing ties with Israel/USA, cease hostile rhetoric etc. in order to appease them to some degree in this regard, while at the same time moving forward in the technologically strategic areas.

 

[Oldman]

Ba dorood:

What we can, and should, do is to stop giving the neocons ammunition. This can be done by freeing political prisoners, press freedom, normalizing ties with Israel/USA, cease hostile rhetoric etc. in order to appease them to some degree in this regard, while at the same time moving forward in the technologically strategic areas.

I fully agree.

What you are proposing Islamic Rip-off to do is equal to commit suicide.

If press and political prisoners are free then BYE BYE HEZBOLLAH!! This can not take place.

In addition, Islamic Rip-off's base and foundation is and has been chaos thus peace and tranquility is not on their list which you have CORRECTLY identified.

 

[shahinc]

We need to stop looking at these issues emotionally.

What we can, and should, do is to stop giving the neocons ammunition. This can be done by freeing political prisoners, press freedom, normalizing ties with Israel/USA, cease hostile rhetoric etc. in order to appease them to some degree in this regard, while at the same time moving forward in the technologically strategic areas.

The problem here is that most people who are backing the regime and backing Nuclear plans of the regime, like to see Iran pursue their effort to make a Nuclear Bomb.

In their eyes, this will be the best negotiation chips against Europe and US and can get them many more things.
This group thinks of US as "BULLY" and thinks the only way to stop this bully is to have nuclear power so in other words become another "BULLY".

This group uses North Korea as their idole country and their intention is not economic advancment but more a security for them, their investments and their ideology.

 

[shahinc]

Ba dorood:
In addition, Islamic Rip-off's base and foundation is and has been chaos thus peace and tranquility is not on their list which you have CORRECTLY identified.

I fully agree with you.if conservetive wins the election , I will not be surprised that they pursue making the Nuclear Bomb even more seriuosly and stop negotiation to create more unstability.

 

[Simply Ken]

What we can, and should, do is to stop giving the neocons ammunition. This can be done by freeing political prisoners, press freedom, normalizing ties with Israel/USA, cease hostile rhetoric etc. in order to appease them to some degree in this regard, while at the same time moving forward in the technologically strategic areas.

I have no problems with Iran doing the things you mention. I think normalization with the US was possible under Clinton-Khatami, but I doubt it is possible now.

Otherwise, if the US was willing to engage Iran, the terms of the Grand Bargain I would have liked to see would be as follows and I have suggested this elsewhere:


"Hypothetical Terms of a Grand Bargain" with Iran:

(A) Arab-Israeli Conflict

1) Iran would agree to actively promote a "ceasefire" from among all groups with whom it has influence, including Hezbollah, pending negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians aimed at creating a viable Palestinian state, with Israel agreeing to the same.

In the event that any of the groups supported by Iran unilaterally break such a ceasefire, Iran would agree to stop any support for them, materially or otherwise.

2) Upon conclusion of such negotiations, and ratification of such treaties allowing for the creation of a Palestinian state, Iran would agree to stop funding Hezbollah and any other "militia" operating outside its boundaries.
Once such an agreement is entered, it would also agree to use its influence to see to it that Hezbollah is disarmed.

3) After such a treaty is negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and once ratified, Iran will recognize the State of Israel and enter into diplomatic relations with Israel.

(B) Nuclear Program

(1) Iran would agree to a continuation of its voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment for a period of one year, in conformity with its agreement with the European Union, to allow for monitoring of its compliance with its commitments under this agreement.

(2) In the event that Iran has fulfilled its obligations under this agreement, Iran would be allowed to resume its peaceful nuclear program in conformity with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

(C) Democratic Reforms

(1) Iran agrees to begin a good faith process of reforms, aimed at strengthening the rule of law and democracy, in the country. Specifically, the Iranian government would agree to not repress or suppress any voice or movement seeking peaceful reforms, reserving its right to confront such forces that seek the dismemberment of the country, or the violent overthrow of its government.

(2) The United States government agrees not to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran, except in conjunction with international bodies seeking to insure Iran's compliance with its international obligations. Specifically, the United States government reaffirms that it will not fund, support, or otherwise encourage any movement seeking to overthrow the Iranian government, or which seeks to dismember the country, through violence or unlawful means.

(D) Normalization of Relations Between Iran and the US

Upon each contracting state fulfilling its obligations under this agreement, or at such earlier time as both agree to be in their mutual interests, Iran and the United States shall resume full diplomatic relations. At such time, both countries shall further agree to withdraw such economic and other unfavorable treatments against the other state.

 

[soccerr]

I absolutely agree that nuclear weapons will serve as a powerful deterrent for a mediumsize country like Iran against foreigners.

We are the only "unprotected" country in the region.

Azerbaijan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Armenia are under the american nuclear umbrella.

Turkey is a NATO member.

Pakistan is armed with nuclear weapons.

Turkmenistan has a security and defense treaty signed with Russia.

Russia or NATO is not an option for us. That leaves us with nuclear weapons.

 

[soccerr]

I think the suggestion is good as a whole but I oppose B-1 and I vehemently oppose B-2.

All treaties that have paragraphs starting with "...in the event that X is achieved, Iran is allowed to do Y..." are subject to arbitrary decision by the opposing party, and we are left to their good will.

Instead it should be very clear - without such ambiguity - that Iran is allowed to fully utilize its rights within the NPT preferably immediately but in the worst case scenario after X months (no more than a year).