BBC: US diplomat calls for Iran action ~ called on members of the UN Security Council ......

BBC ^ | Monday, 4 December 2006, 22:28 GMT | BBC Staff

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

US diplomat calls for Iran action

Iran insists that it nuclear programme aims to provide energy

A senior US diplomat has hit out at Iran and called on members of the UN Security Council to agree on economic sanctions against Tehran.

At a summit in Brussels, Nicholas Burns called Iran "the major disruptive, negative force in the Middle East".

The five permanent Security Council members plus Germany are to meet on Tuesday to discuss a sanctions package.

The council recommended sanctions after Iran failed to comply with a deadline for refusing to end uranium enrichment.

However, France indicated that the six powers were nearing an agreement on the wording of a UN resolution.

Talks between Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov ended in broad consensus, Mr Douste-Blazy said in Brussels.

He said he hoped the final resolution could be agreed at the talks in Paris on Tuesday.

Criticism

Speaking to reporters at the meeting of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Mr Burns, an under secretary of state, criticised Iran over more than its nuclear programme.

Iran stands for disrupting states, disrupting peace and solving everything through the barrel of a gun Nicholas Burns US Under Secretary of State Q&A: Iran stand-off

"We have to speak truthfully about Iran. It is the major disruptive, negative force in the Middle East.

"Think about what we stand for in the Middle East: we want to see the Israelis and the Palestinians find peace, a two-state solution. We want to see Lebanon free and independent. We want to see Iraq free of terrorism.

"What does Iran stand for? Iran stands for disrupting states, disrupting peace and solving everything through the barrel of a gun."

Mr Burns called on Russia and China, the two permanent Security Council members so far reluctant to publicly endorse sanctions against Iran, to support the move.

"It's been too long we have been debating... we have to pass the sanctions resolution," he said.

Wording debate

The UK, France and Germany have drafted a resolution proposing restrictions on trade with Iran that would help its nuclear or missile work.

Financial and travel restrictions on individuals in the nuclear and missile fields are also thought to be on the list.

Russia and to a lesser extent China have tried to water down the text, saying the sanctions should not target individuals and should be limited in duration.

Correspondents say Washington wants to harden at least the wording of the text.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

In other news:

UK Banks Bowing to Risk of Action from US on Iran

[zarf]

Iran stands for disrupting states, disrupting peace and solving everything through the barrel of a gun

We've got 140,000 troops in Iraq and he's making this comment?

No wonder the world thinks we're hypocrites.

I agree with Burn's sentiments but there's got to be a better way talk to the world.

[elhombrelibre]

If Iran's nuclear intentions were strictly peaceful, transparency would be no problem for them. Like North Korea, Iran's pursuing nuclear weapons at the expense of its people for its national aggrandizement and the grandiose goals of the psychopaths (the mad mullahs) in charge. Iran must be confronted in a military way that is brutally efficient at disarming the threat. That means a sustained bombing campaigned that destroys Iran's air defense, destroys its air force, nuclear research fatalities, ammunition storage areas, navy, and in effect all of its military infrastructure. So what precludes this? The most hyper-partisan press (the MSM) to have ever sought to harm a president has done its best to assure that President Bush not only cannot meet the dangers of Iran but must that we must pull out of Iraq so they can say it was too a quagmire. That's their hubris.

But if Iran attacks Israel, the Liberals will have assured that the public's support for this president was/is at a historic low. He is stupid; he is a liar. They've told the public for the last six years that he is the worst president in 50 years; they've even hauled out the highly paid hack Kennedy historians to prove it. Now, the world faces a huge challenge, and the fate of perhaps millions of people hangs in the balance. But the last six years have emboldened our enemies and weakened our resolve even as our service men in Iraq reenlist in record numbers. Our enemies, like Hitler, misunderstand democracy. I'd never ask us not to debate fully our differences, but we're headed towards really danger. Reality doesn't match the cognitive dissonance in the MSM's parallel universe. Iraq is not the huge disaster we're told it is. Was Colombia a few years ago? Was El Salvador? Was Guatemala? Was Northern Ireland? Was Algeria? No, they all survived. Iraq will too. But in the meantime this Commander in Chief may have lost the thing he needs most because of the none stop carping and kvetching by people seeking personal and partisan advantage. Who will suffer because of it? Time will tell.