SLG
|
Iran has successfully enriched uranium | Quote: | Iran raises the nuclear stakes with new declaration
CALUM MACDONALD
Iran last night ratcheted up the stand-off between the Islamic republic and the West, announcing it had successfully enriched uranium capable of being used as nuclear reactor fuel for the first time.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the country's hard-line president, said on Iranian television: "I formally declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries."
Although he insisted Iran is not attempting to develop nuclear weapons, Mr Ahmadinejad's declaration yesterday provoked immediate condemnation from the US. Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman, said it showed Iran is "moving in the wrong direction".
The Foreign Office said the Iranian president's declaration, made a day ahead of a visit to Tehran by Mohamed El Baradei, head of the UN's nuclear watchdog agency, was "not helpful".
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The director general of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) will visit Tehran soon and will then report back to the Security Council at the end of the month. If Iran does not comply, the Security Council will revisit the issue. These latest Iranian statements are not helpful."
Addressing an audience of military commanders and clerics in the north-western holy city of Mashhad, President Ahmadinejad said: "At this historic moment, I declare our scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants."
The audience broke into cheers of "Allahu akbar," or "God is great". Afterwards, a sample of the enriched uranium was displayed.
The UN Security Council has demanded Iran stop all enrichment activity by April 28.
Mr Ahmadinejad called on the West "not to cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians" by trying to force Iran to abandon uranium enrichment, saying the West "has to respect Iran's right for nuclear energy". He added that Iran "relies on the sublime beliefs that lie within the Iranian and Islamic culture. Our nation does not get its strength from nuclear arsenals".
The US and some in Europe accuse Iran of seeking to make nuclear weapons, but Tehran insists it intends only to generate electricity. Mr Ahmadinejad said Iran wanted to operate its nuclear programme under IAEA supervision and within the regulations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The news does not mean Iran is immediately capable of running a reactor or developing a warhead, for which uranium enrichment must be carried out on a much larger scale, using thousands of centrifuges.
Iran succeeded in enriching uranium to a level needed for fuel on a research scale, using 164 centrifuges, officials said.
In Vienna, officials of the IAEA declined to comment on the announcement.
The declaration from Iran had an immediate effect on oil prices, which have been inching closer to a record high as supply threats in major producing countries have triggered a fresh wave of fund buying. US crude futures rose 26 cents to $69 a barrel, bringing prices within reach of the all-time high of $70.85 last August after Hurricane Katrina levelled oil platforms and refineries. |
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/59964.shtml
|
Reluctant Hero
|
I find this situation absolutely fascinating.
On the one hand we have Iran trying their best to wind up the US and on the other we have the US resisting the temptation to nuke Iran.
How far Iran will go, knowing that they have the unofficial backing of Russia and China nobody knows. And how long will it be before the US stops talking and starts acting?
What will be the consequences if the US (& friends) bomb Iran? People are wary of wars following the Iraq debacle and if the US use nukes like what was rumoured the other day, who knows where that would lead.
WW3 I would imagine.
|
Wolf of Badenoch
|
I can hear Mr Bushs` brain cell gaun intae "nuke em " mode.
|
Reluctant Hero
|
I can't believe that this story is not getting more coverage in the various media outlets.
Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the planet.
The US thinks Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons.
Israel is effectively a sponsored US state, so any action against Israel and the US will react.
Russia and China rely on economic ties with Iran, so they are not going to take any action against Iran lightly.
Am I the only one who thinks that relationships between the east and west could become very (or should I say more) frosty very quickly?
|
Abieuan
|
Well, i think there is a lot of sabre-rattling going on at the moment.
Iran knows that other countries would not back the USA at the present, and if America attacked Iran they would suffer high casualties.
I don't think it will happen till Iraq is conquered, by that time Bush will be out, and hopefully a sane President will have been elected.
|
stuarty
|
i'm afraid that action will most likely have to be taken against iran, they are a 'rogue' nation, they are not co-operting with anyone and have threatened to use the weapons against israel. israel has shown marvelous restraint in not reacting to extreme provocation from iran and others. i would much rather that the US/UK etc act now against iran than wait for israel to take the matter into their own hands after attack.
we will just hear a wee news report some moring saying that there have been 'explosions' at 'facilities' in iran.
|
SLG
|
I don't think Irans actions have been any more 'rougue' than those of Pakistan and Israel. There may be a case for action, but one of the main critisisms the US comes in for is lack of consistency.
|
October1974
|
| Wolf of Badenoch wrote: | | I can hear Mr Bushs` brain cell gaun intae "nuke em " mode. |
I am suprised he has any brain cells. Having him around is dangerous. January 2009 can't come quick enough to see the back of him.
|
Wolf of Badenoch
|
| October1974 wrote: | | Wolf of Badenoch wrote: | | I can hear Mr Bushs` brain cell gaun intae "nuke em " mode. |
I am suprised he has any brain cells. Having him around is dangerous. January 2009 can't come quick enough to see the back of him. |
Aye yer richt there the world maun be a safer place wi him oot the way.
The next 3 years are gonnae feel like a helluva lang time.
|
Reluctant Hero
|
The government advisors are getting their advice in nice and early on any potential conflict in Iran. They do not want to see another Iraq fiasco.
It is interesting that Jack Straw is distancing himself from Tony Bliar's position. If it comes down to it will Straw do the honourable thing and resign like the late Robin Cook (what a resignation speech that was btw) or would he follow the Claire Short route?
If Bliar falls in behind the US on this one, he will be out of office within a year.
|
Neil
|
The experts say it would take 5-7 years for Iran to produce nukes so it hardly requires immediate action. It is also a matter of fact that under the Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran has an absolute right to produce nuclear electricity. Once again we see the US destroying international law because they can & us doing it because our big pal can.
|
SLG
|
| Neil wrote: | | It is also a matter of fact that under the Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran has an absolute right to produce nuclear electricity. |
But are they not obliged to comply with the UN agencies who wish to inspect their research facilities?
|
Neil
|
| SLG wrote: | | Neil wrote: | | It is also a matter of fact that under the Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran has an absolute right to produce nuclear electricity. |
But are they not obliged to comply with the UN agencies who wish to inspect their research facilities? |
Fair question to which i don't really know the answer. They did cooperate with inspectors previously 7 my guess would be that they have a duty to allow some access but not to do absolutely anything.This treaty was signed during the cold war & I can't see either the US or USSR signing up to a treaty that required them to allow inspectors, possibly nationals of the other country, free reign.
UN inspectors have a long history of providing cover for powerful (usually the US) states. For examples Scott Ritter confirmed that the initial UN inspectors in Iraq were selected by the CIA & William Walker, the UN "human rights inpsector" in Kosovo who discovered/organised Racak as an excuse for war was formely a CIA operative, US "ambassador" to El Salvador during the geurilla war & public defender of death squads.
|
SLG
|
| Neil wrote: | | UN inspectors have a long history of providing cover for powerful (usually the US) states. For examples Scott Ritter confirmed that the initial UN inspectors in Iraq were selected by the CIA & William Walker, the UN "human rights inpsector" in Kosovo who discovered/organised Racak as an excuse for war was formely a CIA operative, US "ambassador" to El Salvador during the geurilla war & public defender of death squads. |
The UN inspectors do appear to have something of a credibility gap. Until that is sorted out, countries like Iran will have some degree of legitimacy in declining their visits.
|
dave-ex-pat
|
Its not as if the US and Iran dont have a history either. Read "The Great War For Civilisation" by Robert Fisk. Its very depressing, horrific and moving. It explains the history of the Middle East since the WW1 and shows why the US and the UK are most definitely not the right people to improve the situation.
|
Reluctant Hero
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5034228.stm | Quote: | US offers direct talks with Iran
Western powers suspect Iran's nuclear ambitions are not peaceful
The US says it is ready to join direct multilateral talks with Iran on its nuclear programme if Tehran suspends disputed nuclear activities.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the US would join EU nations in talks if Iran suspended uranium enrichment and reprocessing work.
President Bush said he believed the issue could be solved diplomatically.
Analysts say the move comes as a policy shift for the US, which has had little official contact with Iran since 1979.
Washington broke off diplomatic ties after Iranian militants seized the US embassy in Tehran and held diplomats hostage.
Proposal
Ms Rice said "as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table".
Ms Rice urged Iran to consider the new proposals
The move was to show US commitment to a diplomatic solution and "to enhance the prospects for success", she said in a statement.
Ms Rice also urged Iran to "thoroughly consider" a package currently being agreed by the US and EU nations aimed at persuading Tehran to abandon its nuclear plans.
She is set to meet the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany in Vienna to discuss the package.
Ms Rice recognised Iran's right to a civilian nuclear programme, but condemned what she called Iran's support for terror.
When asked about the possibility of pursuing a military option against Iran, she said Mr Bush "was not going to take any of his options off the table".
US officials said Ms Rice's statement would be passed to Iran via the Swiss government.
'Significant offer'
Speaking to journalists after Ms Rice's statement, Mr Bush said America was ready to take a leadership role on the issue.
I believe this problem can be solved diplomatically and I'm going to give it every effort to do so
US President George W Bush
Full text: Rice speech on Iran
"Our message to the Iranians is that one, you won't have a weapon and two, that you must verifiably suspend any programme, at which point we will come to the negotiating table to work on a way forward," he told reporters.
Ms Rice's suggestion of multilateral talks is a significant new offer, the BBC's Adam Brookes says.
Washington insiders are calling this a significant shift in US policy and one which puts the emphasis on diplomacy rather than confrontation in America's dealings with Iran, our correspondent says.
In Brussels, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said direct US participation would be the strongest signal of a desire to reach agreement.
There has been no official reaction from Iran
UK Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett said the offer would "give added weight" to the proposals being discussed in Vienna.
In Iran, there has been no official reaction and it is hard to gauge how the establishment will react, says the BBC's Frances Harrison.
But one Iranian security official who did not want to be named welcomed the US offer, calling it a good opportunity for Iran.
He said every Iranian knew that the previous talks with Europe on the nuclear issue had failed because of the absence of the US, our correspondent reports.
Iran says its nuclear programme is aimed at energy production. But the US and Western allies suspect Iran of trying to build a nuclear weapon.
|
Wonder how Iran will react to the latest offer?
|
BonnieBlueFlag
|
You gotta give it to Iran, they are certanly sticking to their guns.
This is a huge story, the media here in Australia has all but ignored it.
|
Reluctant Hero
|
Latest news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5045214.stm
| Quote: | For a leader who normally adopts a more confrontational tone, this was a rather muted and cautious speech, the BBC's Frances Harrison reports.
It looks as if the Iranian government realises the country is now at a turning point over its nuclear programme and must ponder carefully which path to take, defiance or compromise, our correspondent says.
|
For a man that has just buried his father, it is understandable that he is rather muted. I think that the BBC correspondent may have read this one wrong.
|
SLG
|
He is not stupid. His brinkmanship has worked to an extent so far. Mibee he thinks it is beneficial to his country to soften his stance some what. I do. Mibee he is not quite so politically naive as so many in the West think.
|
Reluctant Hero
|
It's getting more like Call My Bluff everyday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5045604.stm
The Ayatollah has threatened cutting off oil supplies
| Quote: | He warned the US action on Iran could disrupt energy supplies.
"If you make a wrong move regarding Iran, definitely the energy flow in this region will be seriously endangered," he said. |
But the US said
| Quote: | US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice brushed off the warning.
"I think we shouldn't place too much emphasis on a threat of this kind," she told Fox News.
"I think something like 80% of Iran's budget comes from oil revenue, and so obviously it would be a very serious problem for Iran if oil were disrupted on the market." |
Who would it hurt most? America and a whole way of life that is dependent on oil or Iran who depends on oil for a large slice of its income?
|
SLG
|
It would hurt both pretty bad. I'd expect Iran to be more willing to put up with the hurt than the US though.
|
Neil
|
| Quote: | | Who would it hurt most? |
Europe, China & Japan who all import the large bulk of their oil. I think Iran's threat is credible because they can stop not only their own oil but any tanker passing up the Persian Gulf which means all the Saudi, Gulf Emirate & what remains of Iraqi oil.
|
|
|
