Iran Says It Won't Stop Uranium Conversion

AP on Yahoo ^ | 8/14/05 | Ali Akbar Dareini - AP

[NormsRevenge]

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran will never again suspend conversion of uranium ore, but it is willing to pursue talks with the European Union about its uranium enrichment program, Tehran officials said Sunday.

A spokesman also notched up the rhetorical battle with Washington, declaring that Iranians have the means to defend themselves should President Bush act on his warning that military force could be a final option if Iran doesn't halt its nuclear program.

The comments came as Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nominated hard-liners for all his key ministries, signaling the likelihood of an intensified confrontation with the United States and Europe over the issue.

Iran already rejected Thursday's resolution from the U.N. nuclear agency urging it to halt the conversion of uranium into gas at its atomic plant in Isfahan. Conversion is a step before enrichment, which produces material usable for both energy-producing reactor fuel and atomic bombs.

After the International Atomic Energy Agency's board issued its appeal, diplomats familiar with the proceedings said Iran was being given until Sept. 3 to halt uranium conversion or risk being referred to the U.N. Security Council for consideration of sanctions.

Washington and others have long suspected Iran's nuclear program is intended to develop weapons, and European governments grew concerned after it was revealed the Iranians had kept parts of its atomic operations hidden from U.N. inspectors.

Iran denies it is working on nuclear arms, saying the program's sole purpose is to generate electricity. It insists it has a sovereign right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to convert uranium at Isfahan and do enrichment at its plant in Natanz for peaceful activities.

"The Isfahan issue is over. What is left on the table for discussion is Natanz," Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, told state television.

"We definitely have plans for Natanz in the near future," he added, although he did not give a time frame.

The Foreign Ministry's spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, also said Iran would not stop uranium conversion.

"Work in Isfahan will not be suspended again for confidence building," he said, referring to the suspension of nuclear activities that Iran imposed last year to allow negotiations with the European Union to proceed in a good atmosphere.

Asefi said at a news conference that Iran had no set plans for resuming uranium enrichment in Natanz. "Europe's behavior will heavily influence the decision," he said.

Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA, Sirus Nasseri, indicated Thursday that any talks about enrichment would be about setting safeguards for operations at the Natanz facility to reassure those with suspicions but not about closing the plant.

The EU, lead by Britain, Germany and France, has been trying to persuade Iran to abandon its enrichment program in return for a supply of nuclear fuel to power reactors and other economic help.

Iran rejected the offer earlier this month, objecting to the Europeans' insistence it give up its uranium conversion and enrichment programs. The IAEA then issued its warning.

On Friday, Bush said on Israeli television that efforts to shut down Iran's atomic program should rely on diplomacy, but he also had a veiled warning for the Tehran regime.

If diplomacy fails "all options are on the table," he said. "The use of force is the last option for any president. You know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country."

Asefi characterized the comment as part of Washington's psychological war against Iran and said Iran had its own warning about any U.S. attack.

"I think Bush should know that our options are more numerous than the U.S. options," Asefi said. "If the United States makes such a big mistake, then Iran will definitely have more choices to defend itself."

He offered no specifics.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said he hoped Iran would change its mind about its nuclear program, but added that he opposed any threats of military force.

"I see a military option a high-grade danger," Schroeder said in an interview published Sunday by the Bild am Sonntag newspaper. "Therefore I can certainly rule out that a German government under my leadership would take part in one."

He said Iran should be allowed to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, "but we must ensure that Iran is not put in the position to be able to manufacture atomic weapons."

[clee1]

In that case, it's time for Iran to learn a new song:

"You dropped a bomb on me, baby. You dropped a bomb on me." (Gap Band)

[EagleUSA]

OK, how long? Any bets, estimates, thoughts?
All the U.N. will do is deliberate for months on what sanctions to put on Iran...

"SO WHO DO YA CALL?? IRAN BUSTERS!!"

Is the U.S. going to again clean out another dispicable dangerous nation??? I would not say no.

[SevenMinusOne]

Is the U.S. going to again clean out another dispicable dangerous nation??? I would not say no.

Probably yes (we will have to) - But we are in no position at this time (nor is it needed exactly right now) - Any serious action against Iran will take 4 to 6 months worth of time -

Until we amass the needed troop levels on the Iraqi border no serious action against Iran can happen -

Though Iran will be dealt with in a serious manner - Just as CIC GWB has dealt with many U.S. national security issues -

The fact remains our enemies have been dealt one strategic defeat after another for the past 3 1/2 years...we have not suffered one!

[dc-zoo]

Time to invoke the "Nuke'U'Lur" option.

[tomahawk]

We can and must stop it.

[RightWhale]

You know, Egypt should be concerned with these developments.

[Bald Eagle777]

Iran is quite "mad" and in more than one sense... Carter was never quite able to completely understand or grasp this concept.

And yet, we have been putting Iran as far on the back burner, for as long as possible.

Let's hope that Iran has a 'change of heart', however unlikely.

[Kuehn12]

Cool, but I hope President doesn't use the words surgical strike. This going to have to be big with two objectives in mind; to eliminate their nuclear potential and to insure they don't have the ability in meaningful way to strike back. I talking at least a month long bombing campaign which will tick off the world, but might keep this thing from spiraling out of control into a general regional war.

[BenLurkin]

It'll take more than one.

Unfortunately I don't think we know where all their WMD sites are.

[clee1]

OK then...

We drop say... 30 or so megaton+ weapons on all of their major population centers and military establishments. We may not get their sensitive facilities, but there would be little left to defend. The few survivors would be in no shape to continue their nuclear ambitions.

The mooselimbs say there is no such thing as an innocent "infidel"; I apply the same logic to the mooselimbs.

[metermike]

The fact remains our enemies have been dealt one strategic defeat after another for the past 3 1/2 years...we have not suffered one!

You honestly believe this! 16,000 casualties in Iraq alone not to mention the war on terror.The Only reason the Iraq war was so easy is because there were zero, none, nil, opposition when it came to the air, plus the Iraqi military was under equipped to fight anyways(12 years of sanctions remember).Because Iraqi air force sent planes abroad during the first gulf war there was no chance of of retaliation so it does appear The U.S.A. is unstoppable but please don't be so naive.America is making enemies faster then friends. Since 1999 Iran has bought military equipment from Russia, China, France and others.Iran is not Iraq!Bush wont attack yet because that would further fuel the rising cost of oil prices.So then you would be surrounded by enemies. 1. Afghanistan which still major regions are controlled by the Tali-ban.
2.Iraq where Americans fear leaving the base because of constant attacks by rebels.
3.Syria where it would then publicly declare that invading Iran as a act of war towards them as well.
4.Iran a country with a bigger population greater then any country America ever attacked before.
5.Pakistan i will include them because of the serious opposition against Musaraf and the anti-american sentiment.

[SevenMinusOne]

You honestly believe this! 16,000 casualties in Iraq alone not to mention the war on terror.The Only reason the Iraq war was so easy is because there were zero, none, nil, opposition when it came to the air, plus the Iraqi military was under equipped to fight anyways(12 years of sanctions remember).Because Iraqi air force sent planes abroad during the first gulf war there was no chance of of retaliation so it does appear The U.S.A. is unstoppable but please don't be so naive.America is making enemies faster then friends. Since 1999 Iran has bought military equipment from Russia, China, France and others.Iran is not Iraq!Bush wont attack yet because that would further fuel the rising cost of oil prices.So then you would be surrounded by enemies. 1. Afghanistan which still major regions are controlled by the Tali-ban. 2.Iraq where Americans fear leaving the base because of constant attacks by rebels.

Yes! - America has NOT suffered ONE strategic defeat - And our enemies have suffered one after another for the past 3 1/2 years!

Please about Iran's military - It will be no match whatsoever for our (American) military in terms of major combat - And Iran won't even put aircraft into the sky if a war takes place (much like Iraq in the first Gulf war) -

Which by the way Saddam had a much larger and more effective military in 1991 than Iran has today (without a doubt). Iraq had the largest SAM / AAA system of any non-major World power (and it dwarfed what Iran currently has).

You are also completely wrong in terms of making enemies faster than friends - The fact is freedom and self worth are spreading in Iraq and Stan (and throughout the ME...Lebanon) - The values of freedom and self-worth were for far to long denied the citizens of the Middle East....they are now emerging -

You fail to see that Libya has already turned over its WMD program and changed its without the need of firing a shot at them (precisely because of our actions in Iraq and Stan).

Syria will never declare an open war on America (unless they are directly attacked) - Israel could take care of Syria alone if push came to shove (in a major conflict...and Syria knows this).

As for Iraq American soldiers do not "fear" leaving base - That is hogwash - Of course when going into a combat zone one always has concern....but NO, American soldiers do not fear working in Iraq - We are systematically dismantling the thugs inside Iraq - And more and more capable Iraqi military units are coming online each month -

You obviously haven't a clue what you are talking about -

[JasonC]

Put down the crack pipe please. The US annihilated Nazi Germany. Iran is a pipsqueak that would not last a month in the field against us.

[atlanta67]

""Until we amass the needed troop levels on the Iraqi border no serious action against Iran can happen -""

we arent going to invade Iran

[atlanta67]

"The biggest down side"

no the biggest downside is Iran would attack Saudi Arabia and atttack/invade Kuwait plus close the strait of Hormuz

[SevenMinusOne]

we arent going to invade Iran

I never even suggested we are - I said there would be no serious military action (air strikes) until we have amassed the needed soldiers on the Iraqi / Iran border -

This is a very real possibility (likely IMO) within the next 8 to 18 months -

[SevenMinusOne]

no the biggest downside is Iran would attack Saudi Arabia and atttack/invade Kuwait plus close the strait of Hormuz

Iran could not invade Kuwait or shut down the strait of Hormuz (not at all) - Nor could they actually attack SA with any reasonable success -

[atlanta67]

""I said there would be no serious military action (air strikes) until we have amassed the needed soldiers on the Iraqi / Iran border""

this suggessts an invasion...also where exactly would we get these solidrs to mass along the Iranian border for our "non" invasion