0
   

I am sooooo shocked...

 
 
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 02:01 pm
url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/05/1141493547376.html]Iranian negotiator boasts of fooling Europeans[/url]
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
March 6, 2006

THE man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic program.

In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Tehran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear program was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.

He boasted that while talks were taking place in Tehran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant while convincing European diplomats that nothing was afoot.

"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything'. The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.

Revelation of Mr Rowhani's remarks comes at an awkward moment for the Iranian Government, before a meeting today of the United Nations atomic watchdog, which must make a fresh assessment of Iran's banned nuclear operations. The International Atomic Energy Agency's judgement is the final step before the case is passed to the UN Security Council, where sanctions may be considered.

In his address to the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, Mr Rowhani appears to have been seeking to rebut criticism from hardliners that he gave too much ground in talks with the Europeans. The contents of the speech were published in a regime journal that circulates among the ruling elite.

He told his audience: "When we were negotiating with the Europeans in Tehran we were still installing some of the equipment at the Isfahan site … In reality, by creating a tame situation, we could finish Isfahan."

America and its European allies believe that Iran is clandestinely developing an atomic bomb, but Tehran insists it is merely seeking nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Iran's negotiating team engaged in a last-ditch attempt last week to head off Security Council involvement. In January the regime removed atomic energy agency seals on sensitive nuclear equipment and last month it resumed banned uranium enrichment.

Iran is trying to win support from Russia, which opposes UN sanctions, having tried unsuccessfully to persuade European Union leaders to allow it more time. Against this backdrop, Mr Rowhani's surprisingly candid comments on Iran's record of obfuscation and delay are illuminating.

In a separate development, the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran has obtained a copy of a confidential parliamentary report making it clear that Iranian MPs were also kept in the dark on the nuclear program, which was funded secretly, outside the normal budgetary process.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,197 • Replies: 27
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 02:06 pm
Sounds familiar, eh?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 03:03 pm
You are shocked about what, McG? That Tehran tried to hide its program? Well, they failed, didn't they. In other news, this happened today:

Quote:
Watchdog Clears Way For Security Council Action on Iran

The UN nuclear watchdog has opened the way for Security Council action against Iran over its nuclear program, sparking angry reactions from Tehran which threatened the US with "harm and pain" for leading the charge.

A report on Iran's program, which the West fears is hiding a covert drive for the atom bomb, will now be sent to the UN body in New York, US ambassador Gregory Schulte told reporters in Vienna.

A top US official in Washington said the dossier would be brought up next week at the Security Council. "If Iran doesn't respond to words, we believe the world community should entertain the possibility of sanctions," Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns told a House of Representatives
committee. "But it's going to be incumbent upon our allies around the world to show that they are willing to act," he added.

ElBaradei hopeful of political settlement

In Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency wrapped up a three-day regular meeting that focused Wednesday on the Iranian standoff, with an assessment by IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei.

He said it was still possible to reach a political settlement and urged all sides to "lower the rhetoric" to achieve this. "This is simply a new phase of diplomacy, an extension of diplomatic efforts to find a solution," ElBaradei said.

Unlike the IAEA, the Security Council has enforcement powers and can impose punitive measures, including sanctions. Europe and the United States have led the drive for action, saying Iran has hidden the truth about its nuclear program and should not be allowed to enrich uranium, which can provide the fuel for civilian reactors but also, in highly enriched form, the material for atomic weapons.

"Iran has not met the conditions at the IAEA" to suspend all enrichment and cooperate fully with inspectors, Burns said.

[...]
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 03:16 pm
It was sarcasm oe. Sorry you didn't grasp that.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 04:05 pm
Oh, I did. However, it's hard to guess the intention of your post, your opinion on the issue or whatever.

Always a bit of a problem when people just cut-and-paste.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 04:25 pm
old europe wrote:
Oh, I did. However, it's hard to guess the intention of your post, your opinion on the issue or whatever.

Always a bit of a problem when people just cut-and-paste.


Good point!

This (I think) is a discussion forum, not a bulletin board.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 04:37 pm
And look at the discussion the initial post has made... amazing how that works, huh?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 04:39 pm
Not much of a discussion so far, but I'm always willing to help out....
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 11:36 am
Since no one wants to initiate a discussion let me, for grins, be the devil's advocate.

What would you do if you were Iran?

Eat humble pie and do everything America and Israel tells you to do?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 11:39 am
If Iran detonates a nuclear weapon somewhere and millions are killed in a horrible way.... I'll just share McGentrixs joy in him being able to say I told you so.....
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 11:45 am
If the United States had not made such a mess of Iraq, we would not have so much trouble from Iran. We have dealt Iran a very strong hand and weakened the very forces within Iran who are reformist and sympathetic to the West. Lets be absolutely clear on one thing though, if the Iranian government wants to get its hands on nuclear weapons, IT WILL DO SO.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 11:49 am
If the United States and England had minded their own damned business in 1953, instead of organizing a phoney coup d'etat on behalf of the Shah (U.S.) and an oil embargo (U.K.) against the leagally elected and popular government of Mohammed Mosedegh, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 11:52 am
If the British lost to the Germans in the African theater during WW2, we would not be having this problem today.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 12:58 pm
Enough of the "what if" the past were different. Shucks the participants here don't even completely agree on what it was in the past that led to our present in Southwest Asia.

The fact is that present day Iran is led by a radical and fanatic Muslim who denies the Holocaust happened, and openly calls for the utter destruction of Israel by any means available. Iran today is a bastion of Islamic radicalism providing sancturaries and logistical bases for international terrorism. Iran is fueling the violence in Iraq by its words and the supply of weapons, munitions and "technical advisors". Iran, with some of the largest petroleum reserves on the planet, insists that it is only refining bomb-grade radioactive materials to fuel electrical power plants. Iran and the DPRK are fast friends and partners in snubbing their noses at the rest of the world. Both Iran and the DPRK enjoy threatening regional and world peace if their blackmail is not acceded to. Neither can be negotiated in a diplomatic manner, neither will accept any compromise not accompanied by a credible threat. Both disregard treaty obligations and make a virtue of lying. Both seem to glory in being international outlaw states, where human rights are regularily ignored and subject to either the whim of a single tyrant, or a cabal of religious zealots. They are a pretty pair who deserve all the fawning excuses made for them by those who they would love to destroy.

The duplicity and dangers that these two represent should not suprise nor shock anyone with the least knowledge of their past and present behavior. The danger is not from some mythical conspiracy by an imperial-minded Republican administration in Washington D.C., but by a relatively small number of international outlaws bent upon imposing their despotic ideas upon their region and the world. If there is to be world stability and a diminuation of regional/world violence, these sort of rogue states can not remain unopposed, and their blackmail should never be paid.

I believe that the number of terrorist-supporting states today is less than it was on 9/11, and that the current policies followed by the U.S. and Britain is, on the whole, the proper response to the situation. Building a stable and responsible government in Iraq is a mighty task, but one that holds great promise for "breaking the back" of international terrorism. The road will be long and costly in blood and treasure, but that doesn't make the goal less desirable for the world and the people of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 01:02 pm
Asherman wrote:
Enough of the "what if" the past were different. Shucks the participants here don't even completely agree on what it was in the past that led to our present in Southwest Asia.

The fact is that present day Iran is led by a radical and fanatic Muslim who denies the Holocaust happened, and openly calls for the utter destruction of Israel by any means available. Iran today is a bastion of Islamic radicalism providing sancturaries and logistical bases for international terrorism. Iran is fueling the violence in Iraq by its words and the supply of weapons, munitions and "technical advisors". Iran, with some of the largest petroleum reserves on the planet, insists that it is only refining bomb-grade radioactive materials to fuel electrical power plants. Iran and the DPRK are fast friends and partners in snubbing their noses at the rest of the world. Both Iran and the DPRK enjoy threatening regional and world peace if their blackmail is not acceded to. Neither can be negotiated with in a diplomatic manner. Neither will accept any compromise not accompanied by a credible threat of military action. Both disregard treaty obligations and make a virtue of lying. Both seem to glory in being international outlaw states, where human rights are regularily ignored and subject to either the whim of a single tyrant, or a cabal of religious zealots. They are a pretty pair who deserve all the fawning excuses made for them by those who they would love to destroy.

The duplicity and dangers that these two represent should not suprise nor shock anyone with the least knowledge of their past and present behavior. The danger is not from some mythical conspiracy by an imperial-minded Republican administration in Washington D.C., but by a relatively small number of international outlaws bent upon imposing their despotic ideas upon their region and the world. If there is to be world stability and a diminuation of regional/world violence, these sort of rogue states can not remain unopposed, and their blackmail should never be paid.

I believe that the number of terrorist-supporting states today is less than it was on 9/11, and that the current policies followed by the U.S. and Britain is, on the whole, the proper response to the situation. Building a stable and responsible government in Iraq is a mighty task, but one that holds great promise for "breaking the back" of international terrorism. The road will be long and costly in blood and treasure, but that doesn't make the goal less desirable for the world and the people of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 01:05 pm
Sorry for the duplication. I'm not sure how it happened. I went back to edit (common for me), and must have hit a wrong key. The second post is more nearly what I wanted to say.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 01:06 pm
Setanta wrote:
If the United States and England had minded their own damned business in 1953, instead of organizing a phoney coup d'etat on behalf of the Shah (U.S.) and an oil embargo (U.K.) against the leagally elected and popular government of Mohammed Mosedegh, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Well thats true of course. But then Mossedegh had the cheek to insist that the oil BP (Anglo iranian oil company) was extracting from land of Iran was some how Iranian and not British.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 01:14 pm
woiyo wrote:
If the British lost to the Germans in the African theater during WW2, we would not be having this problem today.


That does not necessarily follow. A loss of the Suez would not have materially affected the Commonwealth war effort in 1942, as the threat of German submarines operating out of Italian naval bases along with Italian submarines had been such that the Royal Navy convoyed from the subcontinent via Cape Town and Freetown before the Afrika Korps even appeared in Lybia. The Royal Navy were unwilling (justifiably so) to challenge the Italian Navy in the narrow waters of the middle mediterranean without adequate air cover--and it was not until the Afrika Korps was already on the ropes that Malta was finally available as base for the Royal Air Force.

Had Rommel succeeded in taking Egypt, his supply lines, never better than tenuous at best, would have been stretched even further, as he would have been obliged to cross the Syrian desert to get to Persia. That would likely have resulted in the Soviet Union intervening, as they could not have tolerated any significant threat on that flank. It is doubtful, however, that the Italians could have sustained any significant force on the far side of the Syrian desert, let alone have safely convoyed petroleum out of ther middle east. The only other option would have been via the Balkans, and Tito and company made that route just as dangerous as would have been the Adriatic Sea.

Had the Germans and Italians pushed into the Syrian desert, they would have been even less able to deal with an Anglo-American landing in North Africa.

You need to learn some history, and weigh the consequences of each probability before you start shooting your mouth off about "what ifs."

The Germans did not win in North Africa because the English were able to sustain the Eighth Army, even though it required sailing completely around Africa; but neither the Italians nor the Germans were able to sustain the Afrika Korps nor provide any reasonable challenge to the supremacy of the Royal Air Force over the battlefield.

However, even if Mossadegh's government had deposed the Shah and nationalized the petroleum industry, Persian oil would still have been on sale in world markets. Absent the interference of the English and the CIA, it is doubtful that the Persians--already by then nuturing a sophisticated middle class with a thirst for western culture--would have gone down the road of fundamentalist Islamic reaction. After all, reaction requires something to have reacted to.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 01:20 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
If the United States had not made such a mess of Iraq, we would not have so much trouble from Iran. We have dealt Iran a very strong hand and weakened the very forces within Iran who are reformist and sympathetic to the West. Lets be absolutely clear on one thing though, if the Iranian government wants to get its hands on nuclear weapons, IT WILL DO SO.


The United States has not made a "mess of Iraq" at all.

It was a dangerous tyranny that was about to see the end of economic sanctions at the hands of the ever vacillating Europeans on the Security Council, and an ensuing flood of oil revenues which Saddam would have used to further his power, armaments, and WMD programs.

Today it is a very disorderly republic with a goiod chance of democratically resolving tribal and sectarian issues previously suppressed through force and terror.

On what possible basis can any serious observer posit that the Security Council'd "hand" would be stronger now had the United States not intervened in Iraq? Saddam thumbed hius nose at the UN and a host of Security Council resolutiuons, and, but for the actions of the U.S. and the UK, he would have gotten away with it ! Please explain to me how this would have strengthened the trembling hand of the United Nations Security Coouncil,
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 01:22 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Setanta wrote:
If the United States and England had minded their own damned business in 1953, instead of organizing a phoney coup d'etat on behalf of the Shah (U.S.) and an oil embargo (U.K.) against the leagally elected and popular government of Mohammed Mosedegh, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Well thats true of course. But then Mossedegh had the cheek to insist that the oil BP (Anglo iranian oil company) was extracting from land of Iran was some how Iranian and not British.


We all know what kind of cheek those ruddy wogs habitually display . . . we can't really have expected Anthony Eden and Ike Eisenhower to put up with that, now could we?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » I am sooooo shocked...
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 05:11:04