U.N. losing grip on Iran nuke

[Guest drlogic]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/15/iran.nuclear/index.html?iref=topnews

U.N. losing grip on Iran nuke planStory Highlights

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog says it is losing touch on Iran's nuclear program

Tehran continuing its enrichment activities in defiance of sanctions, it says

Iranian nuclear negotiator says Tehran is being transparent

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog admitted Thursday it was no longer in touch with how Iran's nuclear program was developing, even as Tehran continues its enrichment activities in defiance of sanctions.

Mohamed ElBaradei says Iran has cooperated in some areas but not others.

A report from International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, said that while Iran has cooperated in several areas -- by providing access to declared nuclear material, documents and facilities -- it is withholding in others.

"It should be noted that, since early 2006, the agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing," the report said.

"As a result, the agency's knowledge about Iran's current nuclear program is diminishing."

Iran's new nuclear negotiator, Dr. Saeed Jalili, disputed that statement in a news conference shortly after the report's release.

He said Tehran has been transparent in response to all requests from the IAEA, and said his country now wants the rights to which it is entitled regarding its nuclear program.

Jalili also warned that if the Security Council passes another resolution against Iran, future dealings would be in question.

Don't Miss

Iran charges 'nuclear traitor'

Gates: China urging Iran on nukes

"If a new resolution is passed -- it seems farfetched to me ... based on these transparent reports ... if the report is bypassed and ignored ... then it will affect our future cooperation," he said.

The U.N. Security Council has already passed two rounds of sanctions against Tehran. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Zalmay Khalilzad, said Thursday Washington would like to see more "biting" restrictions passed against Iran, although China is showing reluctance for further measures.

The United States said the report shows Tehran's cooperation with the IAEA "remains selective and incomplete."

"Iran has not met the world's expectation of full disclosure," said a statement issued by the U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Vienna.

"Iran refused to implement the additional protocol and to provide early information on new nuclear facilities," it said.

While the IAEA report agreed that Iran had been cooperative regarding answering questions about the history of its nuclear program -- and said the answers largely matched its own findings -- it said the agency will continue to pursue information about contamination issues and activities that could have military applications.

"Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on issues raised in the context of the work plan," the report said. "However, its cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive. As previously stated, Iran's active cooperation and full transparency are indispensable for full and prompt implementation of the work plan."

In Britain, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said it would study ElBaradei's report carefully and share its views at the IAEA Board of Governors meeting next week.

It also warned that if talks with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana "do not show a positive outcome ... we will pursue further Security Council and EU sanctions."

The talks with Solana and Iranian negotiators have not yet been scheduled, although Jalili said Thursday he had invited Solana to Iran for a meeting Friday.

Iran insists its nuclear program is necessary to provide civilian energy for the country, but the United States has voiced concern its true purpose is to produce nuclear weapons.

Iranian Energy Minister Parviz Fattah said Thursday at an inauguration for a development project that Tehran plans to produce nuclear energy "to supply its energy needs because gas and fuel would run out," according to the state-run news agency IRNA.

[Guest slamminshaun]

What's the solution? Tune in to the Democrat debate to see all 20 of Hillary's positions on this issue.

[Guest Mattivi]

the solution, if bush has time, is to steamroll these bastards like the new biscayne blvd north of 195.

[Guest cire]

U.N. losing grip...

This is the key here. No backbone.

[Guest drlogic]

the solution, if bush has time, is to steamroll these bastards like the new biscayne blvd north of 195.

for shits and giggles. What would YOU do in this case?

[Guest DeepHouseMan]

for shits and giggles. What would YOU do in this case?

[Guest cire]

^^

[Guest 029]

aah yes, ww3 would be nice this time of year. wouldn't it?!

[Guest DeepHouseMan]

Tis the season.

[Guest drlogic]

As expected. No true solid answer when confronted with a serious question. I am surprised though that you guys did not change the subject.

Let me try this again, for shits and giggle. After reading such an article, what would you (the left) do to deal with Iran. Keeping in mind their defiance and past history.

[Guest cire]

Wait till we actually know they have something tangible, all the while keeping some kind of communication open, and as soon as they show ANY intent, what so ever, Nuke the fucking shit out of their capital. Or at least tactically airstrike...NO troops would be sent in on foot, airstrike and impose some kind of economic sactions.

They can have something all they want. Just no use.

[Guest jkfunkee]

we are now engaged in a centuries long religious battle with people of the islamic faith. bombs won't solve anyone's problem. we need to remove all support from the region and negotiate with the winners. whether they be the jewish or islamic, stability is the key.

late,

j.

ps-they can't deliver their nukes to us (iranians or n. korea,) wtf should we care? damn the u.n., now if NATO wants to do something i'm on board. we have no sovereignty with the u.n., nato is another matter all together. look back at the war in kosovo (sp,) we (as nato) bombed the shit out of the chinese and nothn happened. if that was a u.n. operation, who knows?

[Guest Mattivi]

As expected. No true solid answer when confronted with a serious question. I am surprised though that you guys did not change the subject.

Let me try this again, for shits and giggle. After reading such an article, what would you (the left) do to deal with Iran. Keeping in mind their defiance and past history.

Hannity-Lite, im not really sure what we should do, but bush camp is already hinting at war so i imagine thats the way we are going to go. i would mention talks and diplomacy, but you will just laugh me off as some quack. maybe when the new adminstration takes office they will be a little more graceful in the ways of diplomacy. but we cant go at it alone, like jfunkee mentioned, nato would help. but yeah, i will agree that irans leader is a bit on the unstable side, so maybe talks would just be a waste of time, but it should be exercised. I just dont see the pragmatism in another war, and i dont see how this country can afford it, oh hell maybe im just naive

ive always felt that until the jew/paletsintian problem is addressed no real progress will ever be made in region, it doesnt matter how many wars we wage and with who. most of the tension in that region , and the problems we face with terrorism home and abroad and tension with countries like iran, stem from our unflappable support to isreal. i will further divulge on this subject when i more clearly gather my thoughts, i hope this answer is acceptable in the mean time. now scurry along and go back to watching foxnews and Oli Norths War Stories program. and FYI, my vote will go to Rudi G, so much for being on the left.

[Guest yume]

We team up with other countries and continue to force economic sanctions, forcing them into the dark ages, until they let Atomic Energy inspectors everywhere.

Scenario #1: We preemptively bomb them, stopping their hidden nuclear program. They bomb Israel in retaliation, and send word to their terrorist cells already in our country who proceed to blow us up on a daily basis. Iraq falls apart. It's just the spark for the overwhelmingly anti-american factions in Pakistan to overthrow the unstable government there and take over it's nuclear arsenal. North Korea, Pakistan, and Syria join forces with Iran and maybe Russia. World War III. We all die.

Scenario #2: We preemptively bomb them. It turns out they haven't had a working nuclear weapons program in 5 years. A majority of the world turns on us after our second "MISTAKE" and our economy falls into a depression as foreign investment in the US vanishes. Our world influence and power soon equals that of Paraguay. Oh, and it's just the spark for the overwhelmingly anti-american factions in Pakistan to overthrow the unstable government there and take over it's nuclear arsenal. North Korea, Pakistan, and Syria join forces with Iran and maybe Russia. World War III. We all die.

Scenario #3: We do nothing, they make a nuke, use it, kill a million people in Israel, and the rest of the world wipes Iran off the face of the map.

Scenario #4: We do nothing and they build nuclear energy plants to power their country.

Scenario #5: We do nothing and they make a nuke. They are just as restricted from using it as every other country in the world. If they used it, they know their whole country would be turned into a nuclear wasteland by America, Israel, England, and France. What exactly would be their benefit from acting on that? All they want is to be part of the cool club, and get their voices heard.

Letting Iran have some power in the world is better then no world at all in my mind. The rest of the world will not keep letting us attack and invade other countries without provocation, trying to force our ideals on them. You know who else did that? Hitler. The Romans are another example. It's a VERY slippery slope we're on.