United States Sets Iran March Deadline

Deutsche Welle - World News ^ | Feb.14, 2004

[nuconvert]

United States sets Iran March deadline

Deutsche Welle - World News

Feb 14, 2004

The United States has given Iran a deadline to end its nuclear weapons programme. The US State Department said Iran has until a March meeting of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency to comply with promises made late last year.

If Iran is then found not to be in compliance, the United States could urge that the IAEA board refer the matter to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions or other options.

The United States accuses Iran of continuing to hide information on weapons from the IAEA.

[nuconvert]

Thanks. Wasn't familiar with all these Russian companies.

[nuconvert]

Thanks again.
I have read about Dong Feng and Shahab missiles.

[nuconvert]

As for sanctions, since their economy depends on oil exports, agreements from other U.N. countries not to buy Iranian oil is the way to go. However, I don't know how many countries the U.N. will get to really go along with this. Perhaps a blockade?
Personally, I don't see any sort of sanctions working against the regime.

[inquest]

And yet we continue to maintain this self-delusion that they're our "partners against terror" simply because they like to pound the bejeezus out of Chechen civilians.

[inquest]

It seems that one option on the table would be to bomb Khard Island.

[nuconvert]

Well, bombing Kharg Is. would be more than sanctions and might fall into the "other options" catagory.

As for Russia being a partner against terror, I don't think they're fooling the White House.

[nuconvert]

Problem with bombing Kharg Is. is that we want the Iranian people and new Iranian government to be able to maintain an economy. If we bomb that, it really makes a severe impact.

[Don Joe]

"the United States could urge that the IAEA board refer the matter to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions or other options."
Yeah, that'll bring Iran around.

My thinking too. Unless some emphasis starts getting placed on "other options."

What "other options" would the UN have up its sleeve? "Inspections", perhaps? And if they resist inspections, then... more deadlines?

Look at that statement again: "[T]he United States could urge that the IAEA board refer the matter to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions or other options."

We're going to "urge" Mohammed Baredi to "refer the matter" to the UN Security Council. Why? For the Security Council to either issue "possible" sanctions, or "other options". That would be the UN (Security Council) considering "other options."

The only "options" I see us taking is the "option" of "urging" the IAEA to ask the Security Council to take it under advisement.

This is the same nonsense that played out with Iraq. We make ourselves look weak and ineffectual by "threatening" to ask the UN to consider looking into it.

Yeah, that'll leave the mullahs shaking in their boots. Right.

I hate to throw a wet blanked on the celebrations, but let's not kid ourselves. This is Powelesque diplomosqueak. We're giving them a "deadline." If they don't meet our deadline, we'll ask one part of the UN to consider asking another part of the UN to consider doing something or other. It would be laughable if the stakes weren't so high.

We need Teddy Rooseveldt, and instead, we get Colin Powell. The mind boggles...

[Contra]

I've always said the President was going to deal with the "Axis of Evil" in some way or another during his presidency and it has included military force (Iraq) and diplomacy (Iran and North Korea). If diplomacy doesn't work (and does it ever with those nuts in the middle east) then the "other options" come into play. Iraq is now a military base of operations in the middle east as much as anything, keep that in mind. If Iran is smart they won't lose sight of that. And I would never rule out this President using military force even in the days leading up to the election if he thought it was the right thing to do.

[CarryaBigStick]

'more reputable American press'

BWAHAHAHA! OHHH HEE HEE, that's a good one!

[Don Joe]

Since the regime doesn't care about the people, they don't really care about sanctions. But they will try to turn sentiments of the people against us if sanctions are imposed. Don't think that will be very effective. That could be a time that the populace really tries to take over.

It could just as easily backfire, and turn the populace against us. Right now, the Iranian populace is amazingly pro-USA. If they suddenly can't feed their kids (and it won't be hard for the mullahs to "pull a stalin" and starve them, and blame "the sanctions"), their sentiments may change. There's nothing like a "common enemy" (real, or fabricated by the mullahs) to "bring people together".

We may be setting ourselves up for another lesson in the futility of the Powell Doctrine.

"Jaw, jaw, jaw," may be better than, "war, war, war," but that's only when the two options are mutually exclusive. Churchill dropped plenty of bombs on Germany. That's bombs, not leaflets.

The worst possible scenario would be a combination of the US playing a game of "don't make us warn you again -- because we will, if we have to," and pretend-sanctions, that give the mullahs room to strongarm their populace into turning against us.

[Don Joe]

Oh no, not this sh/t again. If their nuclear program is an imminent threat, we should be taking unilateral action immediately ......and without giving any deadlines or warnings.

Bingo.

Bingo, bingo, bingo dammit!

Argh!

I hate when this happens!

[nuconvert]

We're playing politics.
Better to have as many countries on our side as possible. Yes, it sounds similar to Iraq. And in the end, Americans supported the war and so did dozens of countries.
I feel confident that President Bush will see this through, with or without the U.N. if necessary, but no need right now to be heavy handed. This is a preemptive strike of sorts. ElBaradei isn't scheduled to give his report on Iran's nucs until this week. The State Dept. now has beaten him to the punch. I'm not a Powell fan. But this was orchestrated by others, not him.
Have faith in the President. He'll do what's best for us and the Iranian people and the war on terror.

[Don Joe]

Well, I hope you're right, but I must say that I don't share your confidence.

[nuconvert]

They will not be able to turn the people against us. The people are not just pro-U.S., they believe us. They don't believe their government. They know what's happening, and they know when they're being lied to. They are preparing for a change in government. When the time is right, the people, maybe with some help from the U.S., will rid themselves of that regime, and vote on a referendum for a new democratic government.

[Don Joe]

I was wondering today, if he's trying to plan this Iran conflict (or Syrian conflict, for that matter) so that we're already engaged (or successfully finished, if that's possible) by election time; going for the "don't change horses in midstream" votes.

Stop, you're making me hear strains of Willie Nelson echoing in my head, aiiieeeeee!

[Light Speed]

Soon the Syrian straws/lots will be drawn..sanctions assigned to Syria upon the passing of the recent Congressional act.

We saw how Syria manuevered around sanctions concerning the pre Iraq war period/decade.
so too ..other nations.

So then..do sanctions really achieve anything..or are they part and parcell of world law,
with something more dramatic to follow.

Bush has conveyed Americas right to pre-empt.
will this come into view concerning Syria and Iran?

Pre empt also has that lingering theme..ie The Israeli's.

can they be exercised in restraint?
They have yeilded in most cases..the talk is there..but little follow on concerning Lebanon/Syria and Iran.

Personally...I surmise that Egypt,Syria and Iran came into a few low yeild nukes a decade back..maybe earlier.
These nations talk the destroy Israel line..but yet nothing.

could it be that they percieve that the few warheads they have would not destroy Israel..and invite a response by Israel which would certainly end their reigns?

I think soo..and moreso now that the new Israeli intercept system and over the horizon radar is up and running.

this reality..or stalemate is likely to run for some time..that is until these nations either aquire more warheads..or discover some way to nuetralize Israels intercept systems.

so too..the question,

will America withdraw from the mid east in the future..leave it to the U.N.?

or is the war on Terror serious business in the high places of U.S. commerce and geostrategic projection,
will those that trouble America get more than sanctions in time?

[Mitchell]

Ping.

[F14 Pilot]

Bumpie!

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Fantastic news!