Iranians Refuse to Terminate Nuclear Plans

Can we trust Iran? Can we trust any foreign nation? Is the United States trusted by the rest of the nations of the world? The answer is the same in all instances. NO.
Every nations will follow the dictates of what they perceive to be in their best interests.

Can we trust Iran? Can we trust any foreign nation? Is the United States trusted by the rest of the nations of the world? The answer is the same in all instances. NO.
/quote]

This is absolutely a bad signal for USA.
Don't you think that this kind of condition is so frustrating?

U.S. Says It Has Right to Report Iran Nuke Case to UN

VIENNA (Reuters) - The United States said Monday it had the right to unilaterally report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose economic sanctions, for what it sees as Iran's atom bomb plans.
It also warned any companies that helped Iran with what it said were weapons of mass destruction that it "will impose economic burdens on them and brand them as proliferators," the head of the U.S. delegation, Jackie Sanders, said in the written text of a speech to the U.N. atomic agency.

Iran nuclear freeze 'is complete'
The UN's nuclear watchdog has approved a resolution welcoming the suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment activity.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said 20 disputed centrifuges had now been included in the freeze.

The resolution contains no threat to send Iran to the UN Security Council if it resumes enrichment - something the US had been pushing for.

The White House responded cautiously, saying the world must "remain vigilant" toward Iran.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "The implementation and verification of the agreement is critical."

"Iran has failed to comply with its commitments many times over the course of the past year and a half," he added.

The US accuses Iran of planning to build nuclear weapons. Iran denies the accusations, saying its programme will be used solely for energy production.

Last week it had sought to have 20 centrifuges exempted from the agreement to suspend enrichment, but dropped the demand at the weekend.


Concession

Earlier, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said: "We have already verified these 20 centrifuges and they are under agency surveillance."

"We have now therefore completed our verification of Iran's decision to suspend enrichment and reprocessing-related activities."

The IAEA board of directors then passed a resolution welcoming Iran's move.

The BBC's Bethany Bell in Vienna says the resolution makes a key concession to Tehran, by calling the suspension a voluntary, confidence-building measure, that is not legally binding.

Although the resolution does not threaten to send Iran to the UN Security Council if it resumes enrichment it is said to propose that Mr ElBaradei "report immediately" to the board if there is any evidence of incomplete suspension.

Months of wrangling

Over the weekend, and after months of wrangling, Tehran backed down from its demand that some centrifuges not be included in the freeze, saying they would not be used.

The Iranian authorities added, however, that the centrifuges would not be sealed by the IAEA, but would instead be monitored by cameras.

Centrifuges can be used to enrich uranium for use as fuel in power plants or weapons.

The US has led the calls for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council, which could impose sanctions on Tehran.

But any move towards sanctions is strongly opposed by China, which can veto Security Council resolutions.

I suppose the usual will happen. Iran will suddenly become public enemy number 1, the UN will debate sanctions, the EU will be divided, and the US will get bored, don its alter-ego of International Policeman and invade them without asking anyone else. Thousands will die, and no weapons will be found. Then the US will announce that finding no weapons is a good thing, and isn't it nice that Iran has a nice new democratic government.

Then North Korea will become public enemy no. 1....

Bill

The Vatican (Holy See) just has some hundred citizens, a totally antique army - but they are very dangerous: thousands of millions follow the president there.

In invasion there would free a lot more people!!!!

Don't encourage the cartoonish war fantasies Walter!

Craven, would you like me to add "Craven thinks my views are cartoonish" at the bottom of each of my posts to save you the trouble?

That seems to be the jist of all of your comments on my posts for quite some time now. Do you remember the last time you responded with anything resembling common courtesy?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Craven, would you like me to add "Craven thinks my views are cartoonish" at the bottom of each of my posts to save you the trouble?

No thanks, I'm not the only one that recognizes your war fantasies as lacking touch with reality.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

That seems to be the jist of all of your comments on my posts for quite some time now. Do you remember the last time you responded with anything resembling common courtesy?

Bill, courtesy is not defined by agreeing with your lust for war.

Quote:

Bill, courtesy is not defined by agreeing with your lust for war.

Did someone suggest it was? It seems I'm not the one having trouble defining courtesy, here.

You suggested it was by portraying my simple disagreement with your position as lacking in courtesy, thereby implying that the courteous thing to do was share your affinity for war.

In any case, I will not sidetrack this thread any further with this petty argument.