Not if it's built like this:
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.
I guess you haven't been following the news from Najaf recently...
I thought the same thing when I read this, Iran is talking as if they have a nuke in hand.
Or, are they bluffing and will it be called?
Kerry's simple minded plan was to offer Iran nuclear fuel and if they turned it into weaponry, then begin to get worried. All we need to do is be nice, and Muslim maniacs who foam at the mouth at the thought of killing each and every one of us will suddenly be turned into our best pals. This is so not going to happen. Somebody on Kerry's staff must have had a stray thought that perhaps they should come up with a worst case scenario, like what if Iran lies to us. Again. And again. Evidently no one wants to utter a discouraging word over in RAT land.
What about the Coke?
Spot on. It will be about Iraq being a distraction to real threats.
Dementia reigns in Teheran.
Better copy that before the Fog rolls in on it. ;)
What are the bargaining chips of North Korea? Saving South Korea? I don't see much difference in what Iran's bargaining chips might be?
North Korea has actual, working nuclear bombs, and the missiles to launch them. They could hit Japan or South Korea with no warning, and have an outside chance of hitting U.S. soil if they tried. (Only Alaska, Hawaii, or maybe one city on the Pacific Ocean like Seattla or L.A. if they were really lucky, but that's enough.)
Iran has nothing.
Thanks, I understand now, but it appears that Iran will have the same capability soon, if not now.
"Sunburns?" Aka missiles?
Also, I always thought that for an ICBM it wasn't the warhead that was as complicated as either the guidance or the capability of the actual missile to make the range. Doesn't an ICBM have to go at least suborbital?
...no Coke..Pepsi...chee-burger chee-burger chip chip
EU.....Now has earned the listing of complete failure.
I say we turn Iran into a GLASS PARKING LOT...
And work with the Brits to take down Germany and France.
Then we have oil....and euro resorts!
This is funny. It reminds me of the scene in the Life of Brian where the small band of rebels makes all kinds of demands of the Roman Emperor. I'll have to go find that script.
France and Germany will most likely surrender.
The Brits on the other hand may well tell them to "Bloody Bugger off!"
in the context of our forces on their East & West flank. A negotiator could also take their ridiculous demands as a sign that they are desperate.
Do you think that it is an accident that we are on their East and West flank? Go George Bush
50-50 that Iran already has nukes via the Russian mafia.
Do you see any possibility of that being what Iran wants?
Not if it's built like this:
And what a great october surprise THAT would be
That makes alot of sense to me. I believe you've got something there.
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.