Posted on 08/10/2004 4:56:49 PM PDT by Clive
Iran has issued an extraordinary list of demands to Britain and other European countries, telling them to provide advanced nuclear technology, conventional weapons and a security guarantee against nuclear attack by Israel.
Teheran's request, said by British officials to have "gone down very badly", sharply raises the stakes in the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme, which Britain and America believe is aimed at making an atomic bomb.
Iran's move came during crisis talks in Paris this month with senior diplomats from Britain, France and Germany.
The "EU-3" were trying to convince Iranian officials to honour an earlier deal to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment programme, which is ostensibly designed to make fuel for nuclear power stations but could also be used to make fissile material for nuclear bombs. Iranian officials refused point-blank to comply, saying they had every right under international law to pursue "peaceful" nuclear technology.
They then stunned the Europeans by presenting a letter setting out their own demands.
Iran said the EU-3 should support Iran's quest for "advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use" - a reference to equipment that has both civilian and military applications.
The Europeans should "remove impediments" preventing Iran from having such technology, and stick to these commitments even if faced with "legal (or) political . . . limitations", an allusion to American pressure or even future international sanctions against Iran.
More astonishingly, Iran said the EU-3 should agree to meet Iran's requirements for conventional weapons and even "provide security assurances" against a nuclear attack on Iran.
This is a reference to Israel's nuclear arsenal, believed to include some 200 warheads and long-range missiles to deliver them.
The EU-3 are still debating over how to respond, but British officials said the Iranian letter was "extremely surprising, given the delicate state of process". Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, will have to decide whether to adopt a more confrontational policy.
America is demanding that the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which meets next month, refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. US officials are also openly discussing "covert" means of disrupting the Iranian nuclear programme, while Israel has openly threatened military action.
However, there were signs yesterday that the next report of Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA director general, may give Iran a boost.
A key mystery for the past year has been the source of traces of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) found by IAEA inspectors at several sites in Iran. Teheran claimed this was "contamination" of equipment imported from other countries, rather than proof that it had secretly made HEU.
According to diplomats, inspectors have confirmed that in at least one case the contamination did come from Pakistan, as Iran claimed.
Other contamination issues remain unresolved, and may never be settled. Moreover there are several other open questions.
The last chief of the USSR's Strategic Rocket Forces was asked his opinion, after the USSR collapsed, of the possibility that some of his former troops and/or KGB special troops might sell the ICBM nuclear warheads to other countries or even terrorists. He replied that he was concerned that they'd throw in "free delivery".
That's why it is scary. A desperate man has nothing to lose.
Thanks, now we have this, and so will some of our great indexers"
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/strategy.html
Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons. A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region. While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program.
We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons.
Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon.
If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action.
To the Freeper Indexers, please index this.
If we have accurate information on their nuclear facilities and capability, then perhaps coordinated sabotage might work, but would be risky. If we miss one weapon or facility, they'd be like ants raging around a partially destroyed ant mound. Not that they show much common sense at the best of times, but at that moment they'd be raging mad and probably decide wiping Israel off the earth would be worth their own obliteration.
"Serious" isn't quite the descriptive to use regarding the Iranian challenge. Potentially Apocalyptic is closer to the reality. The third leg of the axis of evil might be in close consultatations with the second leg, North Korea. Rumblings that Red China is spoiling for a showdown, after the 2008 Olympics on their mainland, to me indicates the Reds are orchestrating some of this.
We're in very dangerous times. With Kerry-Hienz looking to co-opt the WH, we're in very deep crap.
I agree with the 'middle finger' bit coming from the mad mullahs. Thank yew, jimmah cahter.
By us or them?
ROFL!
2007, I hear.
Remember, there's a lot going on domestically between Hu Jintao and Jiang Ziamen.
Maybe we could send Jimmah over there to build new houses for them after we or Israel take care of business. And don't let him come back!
Done
Part of why we went into Iraq was to establish a US base in the Middle East. Presumably we have nuclear subs over there, one or two? And why were we talking loudly two weeks ago about the MOAB, 300,000 lbs., that we'd just built. This would make sawdust of concrete/steel reinforced bunkers of any depth. Was this bit of Pentagon news information aimed at Iran? If so, we got our answer.
I am not sure about that conclusion.
We are in a better strategic position to do something about Iran with us holding Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember the absolute nonsense that Turkey put us through? We shouldn't have that problem if we have to take out Iran. We have bases in Afghanistan and Iraq; along with carrier power, Iran is in a dire position.
I frankly have a hard time believing this report just on those grounds. However, if the report is true, it makes far more likely that we are headed toward a true crisis with Iran. Iran is in a poor strategic spot -- it has us on its borders and with massive power that we can put in the waters off its coast. We can make effective use of Diego Garcia.
Pakistan certainly won't do it a lot of good, if for no other reason than because India will be watching them like a hawk. India shouldn't be any problem if we take out Iran; in fact, they will probably offer silent support if not active support.
As deranged as the mullahs are, I find it hard to believe that they are this nutty.
If we hold the neighbors Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, conversely, our strategic position is far better. Suddenly, we would have direct influence over a lot of the oil in the Middle East. That would calm China down a lot on its Taiwan bellowing.
I believe that it would also get some more money into our defense outlays -- and maybe it would even convince Rumsfeld to let the services grow a bit.
I agree!
I think this October the U.S. ought to test some nuclear weapons in N. Korea & Iran.
Yeesh... what an utter load of nothingness from the Kerry camp. That statement says almost nothing at all.
Agree to give them "fuel" for reactors? Tell me, John, what does an oil *exporting* country need with *nuclear* power generation in the first place?
Kerry's little white lie about straying into Cambodia that long ago Christmas is being excused by the MSM as simple hyperbole. Nothing to see here. Move right along.
In WW2 we dropped cheapo one shot .45's and M-2(?) grease guns into the then occupied EU,
that ought to be the first thing to come to mind in re Iran.
Let the people do it, then come to their aid.....maybe the present EU has that much brass left for their cannons.
One thought on one of your minor points: The business with Turkey at the outset of the war with Iraq.
From what Tommy Franks has been saying, and apparently comes out in his book... the business with Turkey may have been an elaborate ruse from the outset. That is... Saddam was wrongly convinced that Turkey would give passage to American forces at the very last minute, and this would be the main push-- southward from Turkey with the 4th ID. This ruse caused Saddam to keep substantial divisions way too far north to be of any help to stop the *actual* main push, fast and hard, up out of Kuwait. This kept some divisions of Iraq's army out of the fight to the south, which was were we had the bulk of our force. Our forces were then able to [ahem] "haul ass and bypass" and be right on the doorstep-- taking the Baghdad airport-- before they really had any clue what was going on.
If true... it was truly a masterful ruse. It had all of us fooled. :-)
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.