Posted on 08/05/2005 4:43:33 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces the possibility of being brought before the UN's nuclear watchdog in his first week as Iran's president after the EU called for emergency talks on the Islamic Republic's atomic program.
European diplomats have asked for an emergency meeting of the UN atomic agency next Tuesday in order to keep pressure on Iran not to resume sensitive nuclear fuel cycle work, diplomats said Thursday. The news comes as Iran's new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces up to tough decisions as he takes over the running of the Islamic republic on Thursday with the most pressing issue being the diplomatic stand-off with the European Union and the United States which he inherited from his predecessor.
The former Revolutionary Guard began his first day in office on Thursday but the work of his government begins after Saturday, the day he takes the oath of office and announces his cabinet.
This weekend is likely to see the new president thrust into a row which could lead to UN sanctions if Iran does not back down from its threat to restart nuclear work which the Europeans and Americans suspect might be aimed at building an atomic bomb.
On Wednesday, Iran announced that it would back off its threat to resume suspended uranium conversion activities, a move that was welcomed by the United States. Tehran had said it planned to resume the controversial fuel-cycle work this week but later signaled it would delay the start until Saturday, in effect giving more time for diplomacy.
New president but no new foreign policy
Even with Ahmadinejad at the reins, there is no guarantee that Iran will become a more diplomatic partner in the future. The new president's choices will continue to be determined by deference to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's most powerful figure.
"He has to consult with the supreme leader," said an unnamed political analyst in an interview with Reuters. "He came to power with the hardliners' backing, now he has to satisfy them."
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani, who could be replaced by Ahmadinejad, told state television there would be no policy change under any new negotiating team. "Iran's nuclear policy is ... decided by top officials. It will not be changed." Local media have said former state broadcasting chief Ali Larijani, a hardliner close to the Ayatollah, would replace Rohani and take charge of the nuclear negotiations with the EU.
US encouraged by decision to delay enrichment
Nevertheless, the delay in restarting enrichment has given the US in particular cause for hope. "It certainly is a positive thing that the steps that the Iranians had previously suggested they would take have not occurred," spokesman Tom Casey told reporters.
The United States and its European allies have made clear that any move to restart fuel-cycle activities suspended under an accord struck in November could force them to seek possible UN sanctions again Iran. "If they've heeded those calls, that's a good thing," Casey told the daily State Department briefing.
The Iranian move gives Britain, France and Germany time to finalize a new package of economic and security incentives they had been working on to persuade Tehran to renounce its enrichment program.
A State Department official, who asked not to be named, said the Europeans had informed Washington they would unveil the package over the weekend, perhaps as early as Friday. He gave no other details.
EU, US still at odds over Iran deal
The United States was initially skeptical about the European initiative to negotiate with Iran but changed tack in March and agreed to back the effort. Still, speculation has persisted about potential differences in the US and European positions.
The Europeans have reportedly flirted with the idea of allowing Iran to retain some limited civilian nuclear capacity. The Americans have insisted Iran completely halt its fuel cycle work and dismantle its facilities.
But the US administration insisted it was on the same page with its trans-Atlantic allies as they prepared to make what could be a last-ditch offer to the Iranians. "It would be pretty hard for us to support a process, including the proposals in it, based on things we hadn't seen and we hadn't agreed with," said the State Department official.
If the EU had any cajones, they would immediately start discussing military options where they would start at one end of Iran and the US at the Iranian/Iraqi border and meet in Tehran.
Then they move the entire operation to Syria.
What do the Euro-weenies and UN propose to do? Stop building nuclear weapons or we will slap you with another resolution? Perhaps French forces could be used to taunt the Iranians...your father was a hampster and your mother smells of elderberries.
The UN had better be careful about letting the new Iranian President inside the building in New York ... he might take them all hostage. It is his MO.
The buffoons will talk, as they did with Libya, Iraq or elsewhere. We will pay the ultimate price but they will want to be the "decision maker".
Today Iran is pumping money and resources into fighting Israel, created the Hammas, is a sponsor of the insurgency in Iraq and has an active WMD program. In all aspects it is the US that will carry the cost of decisions made, just like the 11 years of embargo and "containment" of Iraq. Our ships conducting the naval checks, our planes enforcing the no fly zones, our satellites, our SF teams in Kurdish areas, our troops along the boarder.
The EU is a buffoon. They think others should listen to them but they:
1. Lack resolve to take military action when necessary. At least this is the case when Americans are involved. I'm sure when a future situation should arise and French interests are at stake, the EU will be much more responsive.
2. In regards to Iraq, Iran, Syria or Libya, the EU wants to spew their advice. They want a say and we should listen to them. But what do they do? What are they willing to contribute? How much did the Germans or French contribute to the solution of the Libyan issue on long range missiles or WMD? You do notice that this issue quickly fell from the MSM radar screen.
On German TV they even had a report a few years ago talking about how German businesses were being given preferential business because they were against military actions. They are playing a game where they ride on the fence, don't want to pay but want to tell us how to fight this war where they just want a rear seat in.
The EU has a lot of patience, compassion and understanding for our collective adversaries, as long as it’s American money and soldiers paying the price. We see in the Ivory Coast and elsewhere how reserved the French are when it’s ‘their” boys and “their” interests.
Red6
RED6: "The EU has a lot of patience, compassion and understanding for our collective adversaries,"
So do we apparently... Calling Iran's extortion techniques positive is disheartening to say the least.
If you don't think that John Bolton's presence is not largely responsible for the UN suddenly finding it's backbone in this matter, think again.
What the EU can't understand (or doesn't want to know) is that they have no diplomatic leverage with Iran. There are no carrots to offer the Iranians. There are no easy choices here. And Euro-weenies don't make difficult choices. They appease. Pproblem is that [with these people especially], appeasement will not work.
Or they abdicate the hard choices to the US and demean us for being pro-active (when we are, which is not often enough).
We are fighting a war right now. Iran is pumping people, money and equipment into Iraq to fight us. I hardly call that compassion as we pump a 556 round into some dudes head.
There is a balance or equilibrium to things. I don't know if we are willing to go to the next level yet. So we will fight this war under the table.
Fact remains that the EU is a petty, minor player but expects a big say. They want to toot their horn and think others should listen as in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. But who cares what the German or French demands are in Iraq? Britain, Poland, Italy, sure. Those who are part of the solution and are paying the price politically (Tony Blair, Berlusconi and others), those nations who are bleeding and paying for it economically DO and SHOULD have a say. As was demonstrated when the US wanted a second resolution with GB before going to war in Iraq. This resolution was to satisfy the British political needs, was very unlikely before it was even asked, and cost the US a lot of time and effort, even put the pressure on the Bush administration.
We had all we needed to go to war. The failing of the second resolution however, increased the pressure on the Bush administration as well. Point is that those who are constructively contributing to a mid-east and terror solution have a say. Many however who rip their mouths open do little to nothing but expect others to care what they see as the remedy to this problem. We don’t need any “Back seat drivers”.
Red6
I'm with you... with regard to Iran, I wish I could say for sure that the EU was riding in the same car with us, much less going in the same direction. We are playing along with these EU-Iran nuclear negotiations and history has demonstrated that negotiations with Islamo-Fascists are a complete waste of time.
With regard to Iraq, I think explosive rounds are a compassionate way to deal with terrorists. We could be killing them much slower and with more pain!
Whatever happened to the nation state?
bttt
They are still there. The EU Confederation is another layer on top, created by treaty. The UN itself is not a confederacy and has little power of government.
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.