Posted on 03/24/2005 11:26:53 AM PST by DoctorZIn
Top News Story
EU Studying Iranian Plan For Small-Scale Uranium Enrichment
March 24, 2005
AFP
Khaleej Times Online
PARIS -- The EU is considering an Iranian proposal to allow the Islamic republic to produce enriched uranium on a small scale, despite the bloc’s demand Tehran must abandon the process to guarantee it will not make atom bombs, officials and diplomats said on Thursday.
Iran made the proposal to be allowed to run a pilot centrifuge project for uranium enrichment at a meeting in Paris on Wednesday with EU negotiators Britain, France and Germany, according to a European official who asked not to be named.
The pilot plant would have a relatively small number of centrifuges, the machines arranged successively in order to refine out enriched uranium.
Experts have told AFP the idea is to have from 500 to 2,000 centrifuges instead of the 54,000 centrifuges Iran has said it wants to build, an industrial-style arrangement which could produce large amounts of fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but also in highly enriched form the explosive core of atom bombs.
The official said the European trio were “going to look at this (the Iranian proposal) with experts.
“If the experts find a way to monitor this in an effective way (to guarantee that Iran can not enrich uranium to make nuclear weapons), then why not,” the official said.
The Iranians said they would allow close monitoring of a pilot facility by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the official said.
The United States, which wants to haul Iran before the UN Security Council for action against what it says is a covert nuclear weapons program, has softened its stance and agreed to support European countries in offering the Islamic Republic trade, technology and security incentives if it gives up enrichment.
US officials have stressed however that they reject Iran keeping any sort of enrichment capability, as this would leave it with the capacity to make nuclear weapons.
The Europeans told the Iranians on Wednesday that “for us it is clear Iran should not be doing enrichment,” the European official said.
The European trio made it clear that Iran must give “objective guarantees that take away from their nuclear program everything that can be dangerous,” in terms of proliferation of atomic weapons, the official said.
The official noted that this referred not only to uranium enrichment but also to reprocessing spent fuel, a process that can extract plutonium, which also can be used to make nuclear weapons.
But a senior European diplomat told AFP: “If you want to have an agreement, both sides will have to compromise.”
The diplomat insisted that “the sheer fact that this (the Iranian proposal) is being studied, does not mean it is accepted.”
“The only meaning of what is happening is that the negotiating process is alive and kicking. There is something to be discussed,” the diplomat said.
The European official said the Iranians had insisted at Wednesday’s meeting on enrichment as an “inalienable right” under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iran and the European trio had agreed on Wednesday to continue their nuclear talks despite failed to secure an agreement on uranium enrichment.
Iran had previously threatened to break off the talks that had begun in December if Wednesday’s meeting in Paris failed to make progress but both sides praised the encounter as constructive.
- The Wall Street Journal is reporting evidence of nuclear ties between Iran and India.
- The EU3/Iran "final" negotiations are not final.
- With the failure of Khomeini's ideology, Rafsanjani is the new darling of the media. A terrible idea.
- More protests in Iran.
- Is Ayatollah Sistani key to the end of Iran's Khomeini's revolution?
- Iran has successfully tested its new liquid fuel Shihab 3-A missile with greater range and payload capability.
- Condi calls for democracy in Iran, again.
- And finally, a revolution in Kyrgyzstan?
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”
Shortly and sweetly, therein lies the reason Europe is imploding. They have NEVER found anything worth fighting for . . . their talk, talk, talk, negotiate, negotiate, re-negotiate, re-negotiate madness with terrorists and the states that support them are the MAIN reason Europe is swirling down the toilet of irrelevance.
Maybe if we allow them to nuke us just a little bit, they'll get over it, eh ?
Ping
BTW, I am hearing Friday may be very bloody in Iran.
I will report more later.
Hello all,
First, I would like to apologize.
In the last several weeks, in my mind, I have said some regrettable things (at least in my mind) about US foreign policy and the President of the United States. I said these things out of impatience, irritation, and viewing Iran in a vacuum, and not in the greater, widespread picture.
In the real world, things do not happen in a vacuum. Many things, if not everything, is related. Even if the relation is not obvious.
Again I apologize.
Now, the regional analysis I promised yesterday:
[IRAN]
I had called for an immediate blockade of Iran, but I now see that the time is simply not right yet. Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but it seems unlikely to develop them if such an act of war takes place tomorrow, or in six months. The "nuclearization" of Iran is a absolutely devestating threat to the world, but it is not an imminent threat. If it were, Israel would have attacked by now. Iran is orchestrating much of the terror taking place in the region. But there is more to it than Iran.
[SYRIA}
As we all know, Syria is how most terrorists get into Iraq. Syria supplies training bases, sanctuary, refuge of Iraqi Ba'ath party officials and other elements of Saddam's regime. Syria takes orders from Iran, since Assad and Co. want the Iranian money to keep flowing in. Indeed, even Syria is providing assistance in the development of the Iranian nulcear program inside the Syrian borders.
[IRAQ]
Iraq now has a functioning democracy, even though most doubted it were possible two years ago. Yet it is now the case. Saddam Hussein's regime as it was is no longer a threat to the world. However, Iran and Syria have been squeezing Iraq for nearly two years now, with negligible success. Iran provides the cash, and Syria provides everything else. Syria and Iran aren't friends, but they have allied themselves against the Americans and the new country of Iraq. To the forces of evil, a free and democratic Iraq is devestating. Iran and Syria have failed to destabilize Iraq. Not because they can't, but because they were not willing to do so at the time. Syria does enough, it thinks, to keep the Americans happy, and tries to bring enough terror to the country to keep the Americans from considering deposing the Assad regime. The Iranians believe they have little to fear from the US in Iraq, thinking they are immune to an attack or invasion. So the two countries meddle in Iraq without risking their own destruction.
[LEBANON]
After former PM Rafik Hariri's assassination in early February, the Lebanese people have risen up. As a result, the Syrian military and security presence in Lebanon is grudgingly beginning to leave the country after a 29-year presence. It is always good to keep in mind, that there is something special in the Bekaa valley of Lebanon: some of Saddam's WMD. Should those weapons be retrieved, it would be a victory for the Bush administration. The alliance of evil does not want that to happen. Thus, it will refuse to give up Lebanon, and the Bekaa valley in particular. The Iranians have been transferring men and materials to Hezbollah in Lebanon (and cash, as they do every month). The foreign interference in Lebanon is merely changing face, not leaving.
----
Some dates are upcoming that will spark near-simultaneous regime change in three countries this summer/autumn.
First is the Lebanon elections in May. I believe that, in general, the Iranian regime will attempt to more or less blow up the Middle East. One specific way that they can do this is to have Hezbollah relentlessly attack Israel,trying to draw Israel into counter-attacking Lebanon. When, possibly, Israeli and Hezbollah forces are fighting in Lebanon, the Syrian military could say that it has no choice but to get back into Lebanon to stabilize the situation. Worst-case scenario would be Israeli forces fighting Hezbollah and Syrian forces. Syria would not commit excessive resources, as they would not wish to win such a war quickly, if at all. They would prefer to see the fighting drag on, hoping that on the east of their country, the American forces would choose to not make a bad situation worse. The elections will be postponed or cancelled. If the elections are held, they will be rigged by the Syrians. By June, Syria will about to be brought to the UN Security Council, if not already.
Second is the Iranian situation. They have elections scheduled for June 17th. It is widely expected that the majority of citizens will refuse to vote in protest. Turnout could realistically be only 20 or 25%. By July, the United States will not look favorably upon the elections, and it will say that the low turnout proves that the Iranian people are dissatisfied with their government. Protests and rallies will continue to increase from now till the election, and beyond. It is possible, though not likely, that the regime will have collapsed by July. However, the noise of the Iranian people will becoming very loud by then, loud enough for perhaps even western media to hear. The regime may begin to take extreme measures against the protesters, resulting in bloody massacres. Tehran will be in a race to develop the atomic bomb before the regime collapses.
Third is Iraq. By summer, the terrorist threat to the country will be lower than it is today. The country will be more stable, and the American troops will have concentrations of force on the eastern and western borders.
This is how I think events will unfold, assuming ideal situations:
The IDF will fight hard against Hezbollah. Will the fight is ongoing, the Americans will attack Syria from the east. Having been undercut, the Syrian military may continue to fight in Lebanon, but not for very long. Immediately before the American attack, Syria will attempt to launch vicious attacks on Israel, attempting to start a large-scale war. I believe the American attack will come relatively suddenly. It will not be like the Iraq war; there will be little warning. Assad's regime collapses in a week assuming horrible American tactics and surprising defensives by the Syrians. It could collapse in days or even hours under ideal conditions, while Israel and Hezbollah spar in Lebanon.
At about the same time, the US Navy blockades Iran. Oil prices will likely be at all-time highs. At first, the Iranians try USS Cole-style attacks. Publically, Iran condemns the "terrorist" attacks. As the days pass, Iran then resorts to torpedoes and even maybe cruise missles. As the mullahs se the handwriting on the wall, they will try to survive, unlike Saddam Hussein. Their army will invade Iraq and try to cause a lot of trouble. Elements of the Air Force will fly sorties over Iraq. With the Syria/Lebanon front collapsing, they will fight for survival.
As the Iranian economy sinks, the people rise up in large numbers. The large-scale fighting begins to die down once the regime is toppled.
Syria and Lebanon are in chaos. Hezbollah is greatly diminished, thanks to Israeli action and the drying up of funds from Iran. Iran is savaged by an intense insurgency, more deadly than the Iraqi insurgency, but it begins to weaken after the end of the year.
Ya know . . . I just don't "get it." I haven't been a virulent anti-Euro-weasel like some FReepers. Schroeder pissed me off with his anti-U.S. crap before their election . . . but I've been around politics long enough to know politicians of every nationality and every persuasion will say and do just about anything to get reelected. So I tried to hang back and wait for the dust to settle before I formed an "entrenched" opinion.
Well . . . the dust has settled and both Germany and France appear to still be doing EVERYTHING in their power to antagonize us.
Then I started doing a bit of research. Look back over our history . . . as far back as you care to look. Some say the French came to our aid during the Revolutionary War. That we never would've broken away from Great Britain without their help.
But did they REALLY come to OUR aid? Was that their MAIN goal? To help us?
Yes, there were French troops involved in our battle for independence. Yes, the French ships at Yorktown helped end the war once and for all. This is where I disagree with some. I think we still would've won our independence had they not helped. But that's not the point of this post.
Were the French not using us as surrogates to ALSO HELP THEM in their never-ending wars with the British during this time period? With just a few breaks in between outbreaks of war . . . the French and British went at each other from 1688 to 1815.
The French helping us in our battle for independence was more of the "the enemy of my enemy is my ally" theory than anything else. Some want to forgive France for all her transgressions against us because of their help . . . I say, yes . . . let's be thankful, but let's also remember that we were ALSO their ally in France's war against the British -- it wasn't a one-way street.
Then . . . the Germans. Ahhhhh, the Germans.
Some don't seem to know that even in our War of Independence that the Germans fought against us. That Britain hired German mercenaries called the Hessians to battle against us. Some 30,000 of them when the most troops George Washington personally commanded in the field at any one time was 17,000 troops.
So the Germans have NEVER been our allies. They weren't REAL allies in the Cold War . . . they just knew they would be a mere speedbump if the Russkies started moving West if we weren't standing in their paths. So the Germans tolerated us.
Only after I did all the research did I realize their current acts of betrayal weren't really acts of betrayal at all . . . they're simply acting like they've always acted towards us. France hasn't been a World Power since the 1800's . . . Germany since the 1940's . . . and, like Evander Holyfield, they just don't want to acknowledge that their times have come and gone.
So . . . now . . . all we can do is accept things for the way they are, not how some of us romanticize about how things once were. We never were all nice and fuzzy with the French or Germans. They needed us, they used us, and now that they think they don't need us, they're prepared to toss aside the years where, at least on paper, we were allies.
I say France and Germany are every bit a challenge to our national sovereignty as China. EVERY American recognizes the challenges we face with China . . . but a "supposed" ally selling off secrets and technological advances can do far, far more damage to us than can a country we know to watch with a sense of trepidation.
The ONLY ally we have in Western Europe is Great Britain. The others might as well be in the enemy side of the ledger until WE KNOW for sure where they stand. I don't see how anyone can call them an ally right now. Better safe than sorry.
This thread is now closed.
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.