Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Reluctant Hero

Iran is running out of time to meet the West's deadline of the 31st of August to halt their uranium enrichment.

Iran offers West 'serious' talks

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, has said his country is ready to start "serious talks" with six world powers on Wednesday.
Iran has submitted a written response to the demand by the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany to suspend uranium enrichment.

It has until the end of August to suspend enrichment in exchange for incentives, or risk possible sanctions.

Iran denies Western claims that it is developing a nuclear weapons programme.

Tehran has always maintained that it has a right to civilian nuclear technology, and Supreme leader Ali Khamenei made it clear on Monday that Iran would reject international pressure.

Although Mr Larijani has spoken of "serious talks", what the Security Council needs to know is whether Iran is willing to suspend uranium enrichment by 31 August or not, says the BBC News website's world affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds.

If it is not, or gives no clear response on this, the US and its allies will take it as a "no" and will press for sanctions, though these would need a separate council decision, our correspondent adds.

'Clear choice'

The US, UK, Russia, China, France and Germany have offered Iran a package of incentives - including the offer of help with civilian nuclear technology. The details of Tehran's written response have not been made public.

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said the Iranian document was "extensive" and required "a detailed and careful analysis."

The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said the choice facing Iran was clear.

"They can either take up the very generous offer that the five permanent members and Germany have extended to them, and if they do there's a possibility of a different relationship with the United States and others.

"But if they don't we've also made it clear that their unwillingness to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons will result in our efforts in the Security Council to obtain economic sanctions against them."

Iranian officials had previously said the response would address ambiguities over its right to nuclear technology.

Enriched uranium is used as fuel for nuclear reactors, but highly enriched uranium can also be used to make nuclear bombs.

Iran points out that as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) it is entitled to a nuclear power programme and says it has broken no rule.

But the Western powers accuse Iran of concealing an enrichment programme, and Washington has refused to rule out military action.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5275560.stm

Morph · Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject:

This does strike me as a rule for one and one for another, and is in serious danger of turning into a more dangerous and costly version of Iraq. On one hand N.Korea is testing long range missiles and Iran a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which at one point was allowing a large investigation by the Atomic Agency,(sorry not sure of correct term) isnt, surely the sanctions placed on Korea should be reviewed and Iran should be at least heard out on its ambitions to have nuclear energy for civil purposes. However it is true that they have not helped themselves with the public support of Hezbollah or the statement about wiping Israel of the map.
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

sandmountainslim · Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:08 am Post subject:

Iran isn't going to listen to a damn thing that Billy Empire has to say!
A hard situation as the Mullah's are crazier than Bush.
Deo Vindice
WP
_________________
William Potter
ScotWatch International
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotwatch/
Jefferson Republican Party
http://jeffersonrepublicanparty.com
http://jeffersonrepublican.blogspot.com/

Morph · Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:16 pm Post subject:

I dont agree, Iran has emerged as the main country in its region with many others there respecting it. America has the same stance in the west, it may also be a case that America will never listen to Iran, just because they dont agree doesnt mean that they both cant reach an agreement. I am also very skeptical of 'intellegence' of countries' millitary ambitions after the WMD arguement used to invade Iraq. It may be that as the 4th oil rich country in the middle east Bush sees it as a massive pipeline to his motorcade in the US
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

One O'Clock Gun · Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject:

elidir · Nationalist Joined: 18 Jun 2006 Posts: 140

I think Morph is right: America wants to control as much of the worlds oil resources as possible and on their terms. With Iran selling its oil in euros (I beleive) and Venezuela selling its oil to whom it pleases (and why the hell not) including a million barrels a day to China and sales to Cuba, the American administration wants to go after Iran. I don't think a military option is open to America nor to their satelite Israel due to current events in Lebannon and Gaza with world opinion already outraged, nor do I beliive the Iranians would fold easily as they haven't suffered crippling trade embargos, they have a modern armend forces and are an ally of Russia (again I think oil and gas are the economic ties). But primarily they have a population who have fought a major war recently and possess a developing democracy so there is much more national solidarity than there was in Iraq with its mixture of ethnicities and denominations and presidential despotic patronage, nepotism and summary justice.

I was in college with an Iranian who had been a political prisoner under the Sha and, subsequently the Ayotolla (is that the spelling?)- he was an academic and beleived in freedom of speech so at that time the civil life of Iran was very restrictive and oppressive, but things have changed a great deal and I beleive are changing - I acknowledge that it is slow: but we have to take into account the recent history of Iran to understand its present position and its restrictive social conditions.

Society was almost feudal under the Sha (backed by america - of course) with horrible political oppression tolerated by the "West"; then the revolution that was hijacked by the Ayotollas and then a huge war against Iraq (who were heavily funded by Britain and America). The Iraqis used gas against the iranians ( gas from britain and america - the same that killed the Kurds and marsh arabs lest we forget!). I beleive the Iranians lost a million people and along with international isolation (caused by external as well as internal interests) I can understand why they don't want anyone telling them what do do and why thier leaders use so much rhetoric, and why their society is, by western standards of representational political structures - backwards. It takes time to recover from major socio-political upheavals before you can progress - attitudes are largely generational . (I find it odd how the UK is criticising a country that does not have enough civil rights but is in the slow process of developing them while the goverment here is so intent in removing those few that we posses already: you know trial by jury, identity cards, the increasing use of surveillance, a weakening of the presumption of innocence, PFI etc- anyone else feel my, or similar, unease?)

I don't beleive that the Iranians want a nuclear capacity (i.e. bombmaking), and I don't beleive they would use it if they had it against Israel or anyone else; simply because Israel already has nuclear weapons and you don't use them against those who have them already. It has to be said, however, Americas reluctance to "deal" with N. Korea demonstrates the power of having a nuclear programme - the principle of detterent, therefore, (which lets not forget is the supposed "reason" why "we" have one) is one very good reason for countries to actually want them if they are not friends with america.

I think it's an enormous irony that a state (British) that wants to upgrade its own nuclear "detterent" (I don't know anyone who wants it or the nuclear power stations that are neccessary for the production of weapons grade uranium) and a state (america) that is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons (against civilian populations) should consider themselves as the arbiters for who should have nuclar weapons.

I think and hope, that negotiation will resolve this issue. They may not be the most diplomatic state but they have to be given the opportunity to adopt a reasonable foreign policy and Iran can't do that if they are isolated.

sandmountainslim · Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:19 am Post subject:

One O'Clock Gun · Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:22 pm Post subject:

Mate in quote marks. How ironic.

Morph · Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:25 pm Post subject:

Sandmountainslim, Gun has a point, the guy is the president of your country and is just as much a threat to world peace as any of tyhe middle eastern countries, in the last 10 years Iran has been invaded by Iraq, Ameica has invaded 3 countries so far
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

Firefox · Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:28 pm Post subject:

In the end, if no-one compromises we're all going to die (screaming) in a nuclear holocaust.

Both sides are crazy. Bush is a Christian fundamentalist tyrant. The Iranians are fundamentalist Muslim tyrants.

WHY IN f**k'S NAME IS NO ONE ELSE SCARED BY THIS????

If this didn't persuade you to join CND then you are either delusional or far too optimistic to be of any use to anyone other than the writers of Children's shows.
_________________
"Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you." Bill Hicks

SLG · Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject:

At least Blair is keeping a lower profile on this one so far.

sandmountainslim · Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:46 pm Post subject:

sandmountainslim · Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject:

Let me explain a very likely scenario to everyone.
Scoff if you will.
The Mullah's are insane and are working on a nuclear device.
Bush is insane and is worried more about the Mid-East than about our own borders.

There could possibly be a day in which the Mullah-Men hold a press conference in which they admit that not only do they have the bomb BUT they have also smuggled a bomb across the porous southern US border and the bomb is currently hidden in a garage in a midsize American town, furthermore another bomb has been smuggled through eastern Europe and into the West, hidden in an undisclosed European town.
The Mullah's will then read a list of demand (Removal of Jews etc.) and declare that IF the demands are not met both bombs will be detonated.

Call this theory crazy if you like but I believe that it is highly likely, I do not have an answer to it and I believe it is possible within the next ten years.
Scary times indeed.
Deo Vindice
WP
_________________
William Potter
ScotWatch International
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotwatch/
Jefferson Republican Party
http://jeffersonrepublicanparty.com
http://jeffersonrepublican.blogspot.com/

IF Convenor · Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject:

Oh I think I saw that one. Was it series 2 or series 3 of 24?
_________________
The man o independent mind,
He looks and laughs at aa that.

One O'Clock Gun · Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject:

Morph · Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject:

sandmountian. These sound like the death throws of a terrible arguement. Its about as relevance to this conversationa s me deciding plots from films and putting them to current political situations. Imagine, the Israeli prime minister and Hezbollas leader to have a meeting only to discover that the rebels leader is the son of the israeli PM, all in the realms of fantasy
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

sandmountainslim · Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:58 pm Post subject:

Can you people not understand that I HAVE condemned both Bush and the Islamo Terrorist Leaders of Iran??
I agree that Bush and Blair are not the creme of the crop by any means.
If you don't believe that militant Islamists are dangerous I suggest that you talk to Theo Van Gogh via "Crystal Ball" and get his feelings on the subject.
Salman Rushdie could most likely fill you in on a few pointers as well.
I find it amusing that you people mistake me for a Neo-Con
Laughing

Deo Vindice
WP
_________________
William Potter
ScotWatch International
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotwatch/
Jefferson Republican Party
http://jeffersonrepublicanparty.com
http://jeffersonrepublican.blogspot.com/

One O'Clock Gun · Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:40 pm Post subject:

sandmountainslim · Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:50 pm Post subject:

Morph · Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject:

This disscussion was dragged down with the plot o 24 being introduced
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"