Posted on 11/18/2005 10:39:30 AM PST by F14 Pilot
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran on Friday took the highly unusual step of running a costly full-page ad in the New York Times defending its nuclear activities and accusing the United States and European allies of creating an "unnecessary crisis."
As U.S. and other key officials met in London to discuss efforts to force Tehran to abandon what they believe is a weapons-related program, Iran in its advertisement issued a detailed rebuttal of all charges and said it resumed uranium conversion this week because Britain, France and Germany, under U.S. pressure, violated a 2004 agreement.
But Iran also held out the possibility of resolving the dispute, saying "a diplomatic and negotiated framework is the desired approach for a successful outcome and Iran is ready to consider all constructive and effective proposals."
Central to Tehran's argument is the assertion that it is pursuing only peaceful nuclear energy -- not nuclear weapons -- despite concealing its activities for nearly two decades.
"In fact, the predominant view among Iranian decision-makers is that development, acquisition or possession of nuclear weapons would only undermine Iranian security," read the ad, headlined "An Unnecessary Crisis" and issued in the name of Iran's U.N. mission.
Tehran suspended nuclear activities at its facility at Isfahan under a November 2004 deal with Britain, France and Germany -- the EU3 -- but resumed work at the plant in August, prompting the trio to suspend negotiations.
Iranian officials confirmed on Friday that it had resumed uranium conversion at the plant this week.
While not illegal, the new activity signals Iranian defiance before next Thursday's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors, which could send Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
A new IAEA report on Friday disclosed that Iran had turned over a document containing partial instructions for making the core of a nuclear weapon.
But U.S., Israeli and other officials say they do not expect Iran to have an actual weapon for six to 10 years.
U.S. and other officials in recent days have said they do not expect a showdown vote on U.N. referral at next week's IAEA meeting because of objections from several countries, particularly Russia, a central player because it is building Iran's nuclear complex at Bushehr.
In the ad, Iran defended the clandestine nature of its program, arguing it "broke no laws" and was forced to operate secretly to circumvent an "intensive campaign" by unnamed actors to deny it nuclear power plants and materials.
Countering U.S. and other claims that oil and gas-rich Iran does not need nuclear energy, the ad cited a 1974 U.S. study "which predicted Iran's need for nuclear energy and recommended the building of nuclear plants capable of generating 20,000 megawatts of electricity by 1994."
It goes point by point through the diplomatic negotiations with the EU3 since 2003, insisting Iran repeatedly offered compromises and operated in good faith while the EU3, under U.S. pressure, sought to "intimidate" Iran and reneged on security and economic cooperation commitments.
The Europeans keep insisting Iran return to the Paris agreement of November 2004, which called for Tehran to suspend enrichment activity.
But the ad said "the EU3 negotiating posture and the empirical evidence of lack of progress (in negotiations) had in fact removed any onus from Iran to continue the suspension."
Moreover, suspension is not legally binding and Iran has a right to a civilian nuclear program, including the nuclear fuel cycle, under the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, it added.
I'll bet we could take a full page ad out in the Tehran Times suggesting that Iran cease and desist with their nuclear ambitions, </sarcsm>
they misuse the freedom here and there!
The New York Times may be selling it, but who's buying?
Times probably gave them best rates of the year.
ping
They are trying to mobilize Sheehadists..
Hilareous. These guys though; hey we want to print propaganda about our nuke program, I wonder where the best placce to distribute that propaganda is... hey wait! Of course! The New York Times.
NYT takes money from any anti-American.
But U.S., Israeli and other officials say they do not expect Iran to have an actual weapon for six to 10 years.
BS, I'd be willing to bet they have a nuclear weapon (or weapons) right now. This would explain ravings of late.
A waste of money on the Iranians part. They could have invited in a couple of the Times finest reporters for a front-page, soft ball interview and saved themselves a lot of loot.
Thats because the terrorists know they have a freindly audience from the NYSlimes
fieindly=friendly
Um, sorry to have to point out the obvious to these Iranian Einsteins, but 1974 was five years before the Shah was deposed and the Iranian government was taken over by Islamist barbarians. No doubt that report was based on assumptions of a continuing Westernization of Iran, and the resultant advances in civilization and the economy would have propelled such a need (or, more likely, the authors of the report were merely trying to sell Western technology regardless of the actual "need"). Instead, Iran has devolved into a state of economic malaise and barbarism and backwardness, in keeping with the "highest" principles of the philosophy of Khomeni. Comparing pre-Mullah Iran with post-Mullah Iran is the height of stupidity, but stupidity is what we have come to expect from the Iranian government...
John Kerry-Kohn got the front page of the Tehran Times by sending Iran an email kiss in early 2004
Still up online on their webpage archives - Google it up and search Kerry 2004 in the Tehran Times search feature
I had an exact duplicate webpage I made of this during the 2004 campaign - graphics, links, etc.
I did add some appropriate parody background music.....
Ummmm, don't want to give them any ideas, right? Best keep this one under the hat...
Thanks for the ping.
Aw no, surely not, you wouldn't really do that - would you??
"The Whey We Wuz" by Barbra Streisand?
"Everyellow"?
Secondhand Johns?
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.