Posted on 03/30/2006 4:46:07 AM PST by Momaw Nadon
UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council gave Iran 30 days to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons, and key members turned their focus on what to do if Iran refuses to suspend uranium enrichment and allow more intrusive inspections.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Berlin on Thursday for discussions between the five permanent council members — the United States, Russia, China Britain and France — plus Germany, on how much and what kind of pressure to exert on Iran if it refuses to comply.
After three weeks of intense negotiations, the 15-member Security Council approved a statement Wednesday asking the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium.
The statement, made available to The Associated Press, takes into account Russian and Chinese reservations about too much toughness, while meeting U.S., French and British calls for keeping the pressure on Tehran.
It "notes with serious concern Iran's decision to resume enrichment-related activities ... and to suspend cooperation with the IAEA under the additional protocol" — an agreement allowing agency inspectors wide access on short notice to Iran's nuclear program.
The statement also calls on Iran to return to "full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related ... activities."
Rice called the statement an "important diplomatic step" that showed the international community's concern about Iran. Before meeting with her counterparts, she was consulting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"We are very close today to taking the first major step in the Security Council to deal with Iran's nearly 20-year-old clandestine nuclear weapons program," John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said in New York. "It sends an unmistakable message to Iran that its efforts to deny the obvious fact of what it's doing are not going to be sufficient."
Iran remained defiant, maintaining its right to nuclear power but insisting that it had no intention of seeking weapons of mass destruction.
On Thursday, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki condemned "unjustified propaganda" about its peaceful nuclear program. "Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and has never diverted towards prohibited activities," Mottaki told the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.
But, he added, Iran is willing to continue talks with the IAEA over its nuclear program.
"We are willing to continue with negotiations and also continue with our sincere and constructive cooperation with the agency," Mottaki told reporters after the conference session. "Our cooperation with the agency will continue."
Security Council members described the statement, while not legally binding, as a first step to pressure Iran to make clear its program is for peaceful purposes. It also calls on Iran to ratify the IAEA's additional protocol, which allows unannounced inspections.
The Security Council could eventually impose economic sanctions, though Russia and China say they oppose such tough measures.
The Europeans initially proposed a much stronger statement but accepted a milder one to secure the support of Russia and China. Western countries agreed to drop language that proliferation "constitutes a threat to international peace and security." Also gone is a mention that the council is specifically charged under the U.N. charter with addressing such threats.
Russia and China had opposed that language because they wanted nothing in the statement that could automatically trigger council action after 30 days.
"For the time being we have suspicions," Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said. "So from that point of view, it is like a ladder. If you want to climb up, you must step on the first step, and then the second, and not try to leap."
The West has refused to rule out sanctions, and U.S. officials have said the threat of military action must also remain on the table.
Negotiations between Iran and France, Germany and Britain collapsed in August after Tehran rejected a package of incentives offered in return for a permanent end to uranium enrichment. Its moves to develop full-blown enrichment capabilities led the IAEA's board to ask for Security Council involvement.
Beyond giving formal blessings for the council statement — and using it to reflect a show of unity — Rice and the ministers from France, Britain, Russia, China and Germany were not likely to accomplish much at Thursday's meeting formally set to last only 90 minutes.
While the officials were expected to touch on ways to engage Iran diplomatically, major differences persist on that approach.
In a confidential letter earlier this month, Britain argued for including the other permanent Security Council members in talks with Iran. In exchange, they hoped to secure Russian and Chinese support for increasing pressure on Iran through binding council resolutions that could be enforced militarily.
A senior European official said on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to speak to the media that Britain's "proposal is not off the table." But a U.S. official, who also requested anonymity for the same reason, said Washington opposed including more countries in the negotiations.
"From the beginning, our position has been that we don't think it's helpful to have other countries joining the EU-3 in the dialogue because it has the potential of diluting the Western position on Iran," he said.
The U.S. official did not, however, rule out direct discussions between the United States and Iran, suggesting they could be a spinoff of the U.S. administration's decision earlier this month to talk to Iran about Iraq after a nearly three-decade break in diplomatic ties.
The U.S. administration has publicly emphasized those talks would not touch on the nuclear issue. But the official said that "if some understanding emerges from those discussions, then the one side or the other might say, 'Let's have some follow-up.'"
Ten years of sanctions and intermittent visits by pedophile Scott Ritter?
How come we keep going back to the first step? When is the first step really going to happen?
It took them all this time to come up with 'comply or else'.
How long will it take them to come up with a description of the "or else"?
The U.S. administration has publicly emphasized those talks would not touch on the nuclear issue. But the official said that "if some understanding emerges from those discussions, then the one side or the other might say, 'Let's have some follow-up.'"
Now indicating direct talks with Iran about their nukes might be a possibility, eh? And the game continues....ping
"You better watch it buster!"
And aiding Iran in it's ongoing coverup will be Mohammad El Baradei and his disgracefully impotent and anti-American IAEA. Mohammad, I hope you're reading this, you (and by extension Hans Blix) did a great job stopping India, Pakistan, North Korea and Libya (the US and Britain stopped Libya) from developing nukes. I'm also confident you'll stop Egypt (your birth place) and Saudi Arabia from doing the same. Please keep up the good work. (unbelievable sarcasm alert)
Those sons'o'bitches could detonate a nuke in the desert tomorrow... and the UN would sanction Israel for having sour faces.
Hmmm. How is Iran supposed to decide whether or not to comply, before it knows what kind of pressure is applied?
Iran isn't going to fold.
In 30 days, Iran will be 30 days closer to an operational nuclear capacity, the next resolution will include, by US (Bush) demand, language directly or indirectly authorizing the use of force if Iran doesn't comply, the resolution will either be defeated or never brought to vote, subject to Chinese veto, the time limit specified in the non-adopted resolution will expire, and the B2's will fly.
Esfahan and a few other Iranian cities and towns may end up uninhabitable, Israel's Arrow system will succeed or fail, we might get driven clear out of Baghdad (but not Iraq) before REFORGIR turns the balance back our way, maybe the Hormuz Striats will close for a week or two, the only real question left is whether we stop at the border or drive all the way to Teheran.
I vote Teheran. A wounded snake is a wounded snake. I prefer them dead.
Iran isn't going to fold.
In 30 days, Iran will be 30 days closer to an operational nuclear capacity, the next resolution will include, by US (Bush) demand, language directly or indirectly authorizing the use of force if Iran doesn't comply, the resolution will either be defeated or never brought to vote, subject to Chinese veto, the time limit specified in the non-adopted resolution will expire, and the B2's will fly.
Esfahan and a few other Iranian cities and towns may end up uninhabitable, Israel's Arrow system will succeed or fail, we might get driven clear out of Baghdad (but not Iraq) before REFORGIR turns the balance back our way, maybe the Hormuz Striats will close for a week or two, the only real question left is whether we stop at the border or drive all the way to Teheran.
I vote Teheran. A wounded snake is a wounded snake. I prefer them dead.
Get a series of "dirty" bombs. Irradiate the sites where nuclear work is being done.
That way, even if all the facilities are not destroyed, they're unusable.
Regards, Ivan
Because they will not stop their Nuclear developmnment that may and I mean may lead them to developing a Nuclear Weapon in the distant future.
From all accounts Iran is still a long way of from manufacturing such a weapon so we still have time.
And if they ever do, do you think everyone in the Iranian leadership has a death wish that includes the Iranian Military that does have a number of pragmatic Generals.
With any other country I think talks would be productive
But the President of Iran is a loon
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.