Iran nuclear plan 'irreversible' ~~ says ...Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki

BBC ^ | Friday, 31 March 2006, 18:34 GMT 19:34 UK | staff

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Iran nuclear plan 'irreversible'

Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful means

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said Tehran's decision to pursue nuclear power is irreversible.

Speaking in Geneva, Mr Mottaki, however, said Iran was still ready to negotiate to find a compromise.

His comments came a day after the five permanent members of the UN Security Council gave Iran 30 days to suspend uranium enrichment or face isolation.

Tehran insists its nuclear activities are peaceful and has rejected the council's demand.

"We have been trying to build international confidence in our peaceful nuclear programme," Mr Mottaki told the BBC.

HAVE YOUR SAY The UN should bring in some neutrals and commit to dialogue, not diplomacy! EC Dumas, Bushey UK Send us your comments In quotes: Iran ultimatum

"However, we will not yield to pressure and intimidation and will not renounce by any means our country's legitimate right as recognised by international law," the minister said.

Mr Mottaki argued that Iran had the right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium, so the UN Security Council's demand looked likely to go unanswered, the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says.

Mr Mottaki even suggested a regional consortium under which Iran and some of its neighbours could pursue nuclear power together under international supervision.

But it is an idea that has been floated before and is unlikely to gain international acceptance, our correspondent says.

'Strong signal'

On Thursday, foreign ministers from the five permanent members of the council - Russia, the US, France, Britain and China - and also Germany said Iran had 30 days to return to the negotiating table or face isolation.

The Council noted with serious concern... a number of outstanding issues which could have a military nuclear dimension Security Council statement Will US use military option?

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the meeting in Berlin sent "a very strong signal to Iran that the international community is united".

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the council might pass a legally-binding resolution if Iran did not comply, leaving a possibility of sanctions.

However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said his country remained opposed to such a move against Iran.

The "sole solution" would come through the IAEA, he said.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said later Iran was not an imminent threat and sanctions against the Islamic Republic would be a "bad idea".

On Wednesday, the 15-member US Security Council finally approved a non-binding call on Iran to end uranium enrichment, after weeks of wrangling.

[Jaded]

Haven't we been here at least once before?

[gandalftb]

I believe them, the missile test yesterday is also very significant. They want a military confrontation with us, they want chaos and disorder the sooner the better. They believe that the hidden Mahdi will not reveal himself until they are attacked.

Muslim zealotry, phase 2. Lock and load.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

We'll meet again,
Don't know where, don't know when...

[tet68]

Keep back or the puppy get's it!

Such nice neighbors, the mullahs.

[NormsRevenge]

for peaceful purposes only,, like for eliminating Israel as a nation in the Middle East, even if we have to fry millions of Palestinians at the same time accomplishing it.

[samcgwire]

No one wants to reverse, it must be disintegrated and made extinct.

[EagleUSA]

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said later Iran was not an imminent threat and sanctions against the Islamic Republic would be a "bad idea".
-----
And having a guy named Mohamed in charge of the IAEA is not a good idea either..."imminent threat"..so that means we wait until Iran has offensive nukes before we put sanctions on them??? Oh, how effective. What a powerful deterrent. Idiots.

[Catholic Canadian]

Iranians are such pieces of sh*t.

[backhoe]

It is my opinion that we are already in WWIV ( WWIII being the Cold War ) and there are two, somewhat interlocking elements to it:

Islam, a Religion of Peace®? ( links, blogs, quips, quotes, aggravating pictures ) is located here- click the Pic, and scroll backwards:

"Thunder on the Border," click the picture:

( PS- my personal prediction? That picture will become one of the most widely distributed, and hated, pictures on the internet. The Illegal Invader lobby could not have done more damage to themselves with that "Mexican Flag Superior, America in Distress" shot if they had tried... )

[xarmydog]

Their motto;Do what you want to the girl,but leave me alone!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Was just reading this:

Jihad camp to be built in Iowa on U.S. government land (ACLU OK With It)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Related item:

In quotes: Iran nuclear ultimatum ~ FR thread

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Related item:

BBC: Will US use Iran military option?

AND

Iran Successfully Fires Multiple-warhead Missile

[Nathan Zachary]

"Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful means"

While they test a new missle, bragging it's stealth and nuclear payload capabilities.

...And The left probably believes them.

[Nathan Zachary]

Our country is full of our enemies, and our government is too spineless to do anything, except appease and appease some more.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

There is a book,:

Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left (Hardcover)

*******************************

And a review:

****************************************

Communism is dead. Long live Islam!, September 30, 2004

Reviewer:

Kevin Beckman (Sacramento, CA) - See all my reviews

It sounds absurd: why would Leftists make common cause with a religion that is diametrically opposed to everything the Left stands for? David Horowitz explains that it is really quite logical given the Left's first principle: America is evil and anything or anyone opposed to America is good.

Part I of the book is a brief history of 9/11 through the end of major combat operations in Iraq, and the Left's behavior during this time. Horowitz includes the reaction of Katha Pollitt of The Nation magazine: "The flag stands for vengeance, and jingoism, and war." Anthropology Professor Nicholas De Genova of Columbia University said he hoped for "a million Mogadishus." His colleagues objected, not to the despicable sentiment, but because of the bad publicity it brought their "teach-in." Our tax dollars at work!

Part II is the heart of the book: a history of the American and international Left. Horowitz calls them Neo-Communists or Neocoms. The Neocoms of old believed in the Soviet Union the way religious people believe in God. Those who spied for the USSR didn't see themselves as traitors to their country, but rather loyalists to humanity and an ideal of America that's never existed. When the Soviet Union fell, a few of them stopped for some introspection but most pressed on as if nothing happened. Communist historian Eric Hobsbawm put it nicely: "Without the Revolution, my life and my work are meaningless."

Now that they no longer have to defend an indefensible regime, modern Neocoms are simply nihilists. They know what they oppose but they have no plans for the aftermath of the revolution which they still believe will happen. They don't know what they want, but they know what they hate: the United States, capitalism personified.

So why are they allying with radical Islam? Horowitz says that the Neocoms still believe in Marx's dictum that "religion is the opiate of the masses." Once private property is abolished, the need for religion will vanish, and Islamic radicals will stop being Islamic and radical. The only thing standing in the way is the United States.

Sound insane? It is. They are. I highly recommend this book. Horowitz makes the insanity understandable.

[6SJ7]

"Look, Abdul. I said no peeking in the radioactive vat! If you keep doing that your halal will fall off!"