Iran suggests doing sensitive nuclear activity in Turkey

ekrem

Silver Member
Aug 9, 2005
7,974
588
93
Ayhan Simsek - The New Anatolian / Ankara


Ambassador Dowlatabadi tells TNA that Iran feels much more trust in Turkey and is ready to discuss suggested confidence-building measures aimed at easing concerns of the intl community

'We can discuss these suggestions as part of a package. As you know the discussion includes nuclear enrichment, developing nuclear fuel, but isn't limited to that. If any of this was done on Turkish soil, it would be better for us,' Dowlatabadi says, stressing that they favor Turkey's involvement.

Iranian ambassador underlines importance of security agreement between the 2 countries signed in 2004 and says since then Turkey's security is also Iran's. Saying that Iran paid in blood in struggle against PKK, Dowlatabadi adds that Iran and Turkey don't constitute threat to each other, on the contrary they provide mutual security

Dowlatabadi rules out competition between Turkey and Iran on Iraq and says both favor the unity, territorial integrity and stronger central govt in Iraq. Iranian ambassador accuses US, Israel of seeking a civil, sectarian war in Iraq

Iran has greater confidence in Turkey than Western actors and is ready to discuss carrying out some of its sensitive nuclear activity on Turkish soil, as part of a package aiming to create more confidence in the international community, Iranian Ambassador Firooz Dowlatabadi told The New Anatolian on Monday.

Talks between Russia and Iran on a proposal for joint uranium enrichment in Russian soil failed to produce an agreement on Monday. But the Iranian government said that they welcome any proposal that will preserve Iran's right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy and allay the concerns of certain Western states.

Iranian Ambassador Dowlatabadi, speaking exclusively with TNA, stressed that Iran is ready to discuss several suggestions for confidence-building on Iran's nuclear program and added:

"We have much more confidence in Turkey. We can discuss these suggestions as part of a package. As you know the discussion includes nuclear enrichment, developing nuclear fuel, but is not limited to that. If any of these would be on Turkish soil, it would be better for us. The issue has technical and legal aspects and can be further discussed in detail by the experts. But as I have said we are ready to discuss Turkey's involvement in this process."

Ambassador Dowlatabadi, before heading to Tehran on Monday for consultations, spoke with TNA about Iran's nuclear program, Turkish-Iranian relations and recent developments in Iraq.

Here's what Dowlatabadi had to tell us:

TNA: Mr. Ambassador, the Turkish government has been criticized by several U.S. and European Union officials for being "too soft" against Iran concerning its nuclear program, which they described also as a threat to Turkey's own security. How does Iran view the policy of the Turkish government so far on the Iranian nuclear program?

DOWLATABADI: Well, Turkey's policy so far has been an acceptable one. I can tell you that we expect our Turkish brothers and friends to double-check all the information that they receive either from the U.S., Israel or some other countries concerning our nuclear program. Because so far, much of the information they were given was distorted and manipulated. Especially the data delivered by the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA on his recent visit to Ankara.

TNA: Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, following a meeting with his German counterpart late last month, urged Iran to be more transparent and in full cooperation with the UN's watchdog on its nuclear program. How do you see these suggestions, are you going to consider them?

DOWLATABADI: This expectation to be more transparent on our nuclear program is in parallel with the expectations raised by various other countries. And we are doing our ut most to be as transparent as possible concerning our nuclear program. But we also expect others like the U.S. and Israel also to be transparent with their nuclear programs. We have called on the Turkish side, diplomats, parliamentarians, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the media to come and visit our nuclear facilities and learn about our program. Now we're waiting for a possible visit from Turkish parliamentarians and I hope that this visit will be realized soon.

TNA: Are there some guarantees given by Tehran to Ankara concerning the nuclear program, that it will by no means be a threat to Turkey?

DOWLATABADI: First of all, I have to recall that Iran's nuclear program has never had a military dimension. Indeed this fact has been accepted by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei several times. Secondly, our countries signed a very significant security agreement in 2004, during the visit of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. And accordingly, Iran views that Turkey's security is also Iran's security. As you know the Turkish-Iranian border has remained unchanged over the past 1,000 year. During the time of the founder of the Turkish Republic Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Iran agreed to make some geopolitical territorial revisions on our border, which opened Turkey a sphere towards the Caucasus and Central Asia. Last but not least, don't forget our fight against the PKK (terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party). We Iranians gave martyrs in the struggle against the PKK. After all, can you tell me any other two countries in the world which have such strong bonds? This shows nothing but the very fact that Iran and Turkey are not a threat to each other, on the contrary they provide mutual security to each other. What can be a better guarantee for Turkey then that?

On the other hand, look at what the U.S. and Israel are doing. The Americans are, despite their strength in Iraq, doing nothing against the PKK but supporting them. It is the Americans and Israel who also aim for a civil and sectarian war in Iraq. These are the things which constitute real threats to Turkey's national security. Israel's national security paper, which has been kept secret, foresees that Turkey should be kept weak in the region. Because Israel believes that its existence today is due to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and today they fear Turkey becoming stronger in the region. They try to be nice to Turkey on the outside, but behind closed doors they develop sinister plots against Turkey.

The U.S. doesn't want any strong Muslim country in the region and aims for division of Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia in the long run, through well-developed plans.

TNA: It's not only the U.S. and Israel but also several other European countries who express concern that Iran's real aim might be to develop a nuclear bomb. But you're saying that it is totally out of the question. So what do you think that the real aim of the Western pressure on Iran's nuclear program aims for?

DOWLATABADI: I believe that behind that there is the strong tendency in the Islamic world towards stronger economic and scientific capacity which raises concern among them. They know that no country can achieve success in the highly competitive global world without achieving nuclear technology. Nuclear technology is becoming more and more important in the fields of energy, health and even agriculture. And they're trying to prevent us from reaching that technology.

TNA: Without a doubt, there is a large gap of confidence with the Western states and Iran on this nuclear program issue. Don't you think some formulas can be found, such as Iran temporarily doing this nuclear enrichment outside its borders, under an international guarantee, also with the involvement of several reliable countries? And also, what do you think about Turkey's involvement?

DOWLATABADI: Yes there is a problem of a lack of confidence, but this is not because of us, but because of the U.S. and Israel. The UN has all the means for inspection of the nuclear sites and the activities in Iran. But look at the U.S., it is the only country which has used a nuclear weapon so far and it still continues violating its commitments by doing nothing to reduce the number of its nuclear weapons. Israel moreover has no cooperation with the UN, it has nuclear weapons and continues its nuclear activities without any inspection by the UN at all. It continues aggressive policies against its neighbors. And we're talking about confidence-building, so why doesn't Israel have such a responsibility?

Now, we are part of international agreements and we will continue to fulfill our responsibilities. And we still think that some of the suggestions for confidence-building can be further discussed. We have much more confidence in Turkey. We can discuss these suggestions as part of a package. As you know, the discussion includes nuclear enrichment, developing nuclear fuel, but is not limited to that. If any of this would be on Turkish soil, it would be better for us. The issue has technical and legal aspects and can be further discussed in detail by the experts. But as I have said we are ready to discuss Turkey's involvement in this process. We are also calling on the Turkish side and companies to enter into nuclear projects inside Iran.

TNA: Another important issue in our region is Iraq, and recently Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul was quoted by his Czech counterpart as saying that if the U.S.-led coalition forces were to leave Iraq, then an Iranian-type radical Islam would be strengthened in Iraq and then Tehran would also be able to export this to Turkey. Have you asked for a clarification from the Turkish side? Is there really a competition between Ankara and Tehran on the Iraq issue?

DOWLATABADI: No, we haven't sought any clarification. We already knew that these supposed statements had no foundation and Mr. Gul already denied it. I have to tell you that today between Iran and Turkey today the very best cooperation is on Iraq. We favor the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq, and so does Turkey. We want all ethnic and religious groups to be represented in the government, which is also what Turkey wants. We are supporting Kurds taking part in the central government and we want this central government to be strengthened, and Turkey also is advocating that. Last but not least, we want the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq, and Turkey with some reservations supports this idea. How can we talk about disagreements after all that?

TNA: Mr. Ambassador, today you are leaving Ankara for regular consultations with Tehran. Lastly, I want to ask you this: What main impressions and ideas will you convey to Tehran?

DOWLATABADI: Without a doubt, Turkey is willing to further develop relations with Iran. Turkey wants a peaceful and democratic solution to the nuclear standoff. And Turkey shares with us the desire to further continue our mutual high-level visits.

http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-2267.html
 
Turkey foritself points to the aim to get 6,5 % of its Energy by nuclear energy.
We will build 3-5 Nuclear power plants in Turkey. The first will be finished by 2012.

Turkey will enrich its uranium itself. Then maybe we can enrich Irans Uranium also in Turkey.
 
canavar said:
Turkey foritself points to the aim to get 6,5 % of its Energy by nuclear energy.
We will build 3-5 Nuclear power plants in Turkey. The first will be finished by 2012.

Turkey will enrich its uranium itself. Then maybe we can enrich Irans Uranium also in Turkey.
Well you've convinced me, Turkey is for itself and radical Islam. No problem there, just like Hamas being elected, just be ready for the reactions to the choices.
 
Kathianne said:
Well you've convinced me, Turkey is for itself and radical Islam. No problem there, just like Hamas being elected, just be ready for the reactions to the choices.

No. I didn't convinced here anybody. Ebverybody is his own master with his own prejudices.
So when you have nothing to say besides "Radical islam, Islamofascist"-Turkey, please don't say anything then allthough it is your forum and you are moderator.
 
canavar said:
No. I didn't convinced here anybody. Ebverybody is his own master with his own prejudices.
So when you have nothing to say besides "Radical islam, Islamofascist"-Turkey, please don't say anything then allthough it is your forum and you are moderator.
Oh yes, you have convinced me over the past few weeks with 'Turkey' going it alone. Which they have every right to do. I've changed my perception, which is my right, NOT because I'm a moderator, but as a member.
 
Over last few weeks all written is under Nationalism and Terror prism. Nothing to do with Islam.
But nice to hear it from you what you think.
 
Now on-topic:

When Iran and Russia can not agree on enrichment in Russia, but Iran looks open to the idea of enriching Uran in Turkey.

Turkish nuclear power plants will be built by PPP (Public-Private)-model or as energy minister favors, completely by private firms.
Turkish energy Minister was 3 weeks ago in USA. There he visited a US Nuclear power plant. US-firm Westinghouse has good chances to be partner in this plans.

Also France, Ukraine, Russia, Japan and South-Corea want to be in partnership with Turkish firms to build up nuclear plants.



U.S. OFFERS TURKEY NUCLEAR HELP

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The United States has offered to help build Turkey's first nuclear power plant.

Turkish and U.S. officials have discussed Ankara's plans to build up to eight nuclear reactors for energy production. They said the Bush administration has offered to help Ankara implement the project, which envisions the generation of five megawatts of electricity.

On Feb. 9, Turkish Energy Minister Hilmi Guler met U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in Washington for a discussion on cooperation. Later, the two men toured a nuclear reactor at Lake Anna, Va.

"The rise in petrol prices has also influenced our thinking on this subject, as we see it is necessary to diversify resources and at the same time secure the supplies," Guler said. "That is one of the driving forces behind this visit and we want to put nuclear energy in our basket of supply sources."
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2006/february/02_14_3.html


Turkey will do this with full enrichment circulus.
So when Turkey does this on its own soil, we can enrich Uran for Iran, too when this is being wanted by all sides.
 
So Turkey, unlike Russia, hasn't a problem with Iran also doing enrichment? Wow, quick move into EU. :rolleyes: Perhaps you haven't been reading what Chirac has been saying regarding Iran?
 
Kathianne said:
So Turkey, unlike Russia, hasn't a problem with Iran also doing enrichment? Wow, quick move into EU. :rolleyes: Perhaps you haven't been reading what Chirac has been saying regarding Iran?


France says Iran has right for nuclear energy.
 
canavar said:
France says Iran has right for nuclear energy.
Check it out, not for weapons, and the supposed need for power plants is ludicrous.
 
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/16/iran.france.ap/index.html
France: Iran program 'military'

PARIS, France (AP) -- French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Thursday that Iran's nuclear activity is a cover for a clandestine weapons program, in France's most direct attack on Tehran in the escalating international dispute.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator immediately dismissed the charge, insisting that Iran did not "want to have the bomb."

Douste-Blazy's bold statement appeared to reflect mounting exasperation and a tougher stance than European negotiators had previously maintained in their efforts to persuade Iran to suspend nuclear activities.

"No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. It is a clandestine military nuclear program," Douste-Blazy said on France-2 television. "The international community has sent a very firm message in telling the Iranians to return to reason and suspend all nuclear activity and the enrichment and conversion of uranium, but they aren't listening to us."

Europe and the United States fear that Iran is using its nuclear energy program to build nuclear weapons, and the U.N. Security Council is to consider Iran's nuclear activities next month. Amid mounting tensions, Iran resumed small-scale uranium enrichment last week.

"Now it's up to the Security Council to say what it will do, what means it will use to stop, to manage, to halt this terrible crisis of nuclear proliferation caused by Iran," Douste-Blazy said...
 
Kathianne said:
Check it out, not for weapons, and the supposed need for power plants is ludicrous.

you don't have need to tell me that iran has no right for atomic bomb. Nevertheless Iran has right for nuclear energy as India, France, USA and all others have.




Turkey cautious about Iran's nuclear offer

The New Anatolian / Ankara


Ankara gave a cautious response yesterday to Iran's proposal to carry out some of its sensitive nuclear activity on Turkish soil as part of measures to regain the international community's confidence.

"Iran has international responsibilities and has to convince the international community that its program is peaceful," one Turkish diplomat underlined on Thursday, in a rather lukewarm response to the Iranian proposal. "There is already an ongoing process with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on confidence-building measures, everybody is focused on that and we also want to see first the outcome of this," he said. The diplomat also added that Turkey shares the concerns of the international community and supports the European Union's efforts for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear controversy.

The Iranian ambassador to Turkey, Firooz Dowlatabadi, in an exclusive interview with The New Anatolian said on Monday that Iran has greater confidence in Turkey than Western actors and proposed carrying out some sensitive nuclear activity on Turkish soil.

"We can discuss these suggestions as part of a package," he said. "As you know the discussion includes nuclear enrichment, developing nuclear fuel, but is not limited to that. If any of these would be on Turkish soil, it would be better for us. The issue has technical and legal aspects and can be further discussed in detail by the experts. But as I have said we are ready to discuss Turkey's involvement in this process."
http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-2377.html
 
and around the mulberry bush again:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/09/iran.nuclear/

U.N. tackles Iran nuclear crisis

UNITED NATIONS -- The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have begun talks over Iran's nuclear program following a formal report by the head of the agency's atomic watchdog.

Diplomats from the veto-wielding powers -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- met briefly in New York on Wednesday before the full council tackles the issue next week.

The 15-nation council is expected to issue a statement urging Iran to comply with resolutions by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

But there are differences among the permanent council members over what the statement should say, and diplomats from the five nations are expected to meet again on Friday, Reuters reported.

On Wednesday, IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei sent a February 27 report on Iran to the Security Council after presenting it to the 35-nation IAEA board of governors in Vienna, Austria.

The IAEA meeting with marked by tension between the West and Iran, which warned that the U.S. could face "harm and pain" for its role in pushing Tehran to end its nuclear program. (Watch the U.S., Iran engage in an explosive war of words -- 1:49)

Washington dismissed the comments as "provocative" and said Iran had "only contributed to mounting international concerns about its pursuit of nuclear weapons." (Full story)

U.S. officials believe Iran's program is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran says it is for civilian purposes only.

Britain has suggested the Security Council ask for a report from the IAEA in 14 days on whether Iran has made any progress in complying with its requests, diplomats said.

But Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrei Denisov said two weeks was not enough time and warned that the controversy should not "spin out of control of the IAEA."

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, who chaired the meeting, told reporters, "We talked about the role and reaction of the Security Council to the continued Iranian violation of the (nuclear) Nonproliferation Treaty."

"It has been a core element of our position since I have been working on this that Iran has to cease enrichment activities. And I think what comes next is the word 'period,' " Reuters quoted Bolton as saying.

In Washington, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns suggested that if appeals and demands failed, the United States would push for sanctions against Iran.

"We believe that next Monday or Tuesday the United Nations Security Council will begin a very active debate about Iran's nuclear ambitions," Burns said Wednesday.

"That debate will be designed to shine a very large, intensive spotlight on what we believe to be a clear Iranian (weapons) program."

He told a congressional committee that Washington would like to see the Security Council consider a statement condemning Iran, if not something stronger that would "entertain the possibility of a resolution to isolate and hopefully influence (Iran's) behavior."

He also indicated that if action failed in the Security Council, the United States would look elsewhere.

"It's going to be incumbent upon our allies around the world, and interested countries, to show that they are willing to act, should the words and resolutions of the United Nations not suffice," Reuters quoted Burns as saying.

However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said sanctions against Iran would be ineffective and military action was not a solution.

"I don't think sanctions as a means to solve a crisis have ever achieved a goal in the recent history," Lavrov told reporters after meeting U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

He added that Russia was "convinced that there is no military solution to this crisis."

"We should all strive for a solution which would not endanger the ability of the IAEA to continue its work in Iran, while of course making sure that there is no danger for the nonproliferation regime," Lavrov said.

In Beijing, China's Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing called for more negotiations, saying, "There is still room for cooperation" and "we support the European Union and Russian engagement with Iran," Reuters reported. China is known to oppose sanctions.

On Thursday, Iran's president accused the Western world of bullying and called "for a reign of justice, peace and security in every nation," according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.

"Iranians are not used to bullying and will not also surrender to bullying," IRNA quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying. "The Iranian nation has just one slogan: 'Nuclear energy is the Iranian nation's inalienable right.'

"Certain powers think that by holding meetings they can force the Iranian nation to capitulate. But the era of bullying has passed and real power is in the hands of nations.

"We should help bring peace, tranquility and security to the world and for a reign of justice, peace and security in every nation."
 
oh, and one more:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran
Iran Threatens U.S. Over Nuclear Program

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 34 minutes ago

Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday if the U.S. tries to use the U.N. Security Council — which has the power to impose sanctions — as a lever to punish Tehran for its suspect nuclear program.

Washington warned that Tehran has enough nuclear material for up to 10 atomic bombs.

Hours after the Iranian and U.S. exchange, the some members of the Security Council took up the issue for the first time, with the five permanent nations holding consultations in New York.

The rhetoric reflected the intensity of the debate at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy's 35-nation board in Vienna over a critical report on Iran's nuclear program. The meeting ended late Wednesday, formally opening the path to Security Council action that could range from a mild statement urging compliance to sanctions or even military measures.

The meeting also set the stage for a potential struggle between Washington, which seeks harsh measures against Tehran, and Moscow, which advocates a softer line.

But the head of the IAEA — the U.N. nuclear watchdog — cast Security Council involvement as a continuation of diplomacy with Iran.

Mohamed ElBaradei also suggested that Washington might need to talk to Tehran directly if negotiations reach the stage of focusing on security guarantees to Tehran in exchange for concessions on its nuclear program.

"Once we start to discuss security issues my personal view (is) that at one point the U.S. should also be engaged into a dialogue," ElBaradei told reporters.

The IAEA put the Security Council on alert over the issue last month but delayed any action to give more time for diplomacy under an agreement by the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain — the five permanent Security Council members that wield veto power.

Meanwhile, the five permanent members of the council met to discuss a first response to the Iran nuclear crisis.

One council diplomat said after the quick meeting that Britain had proposed that ElBaradei report back in two weeks about Iran's progress toward compliance with IAEA resolutions. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because consultations were private.

Iran claims its nuclear program is peaceful and only aimed at generating electricity, but an increasing number of countries have come to share the U.S. view that Tehran is seeking to develop atomic weapons.

Iran has been under growing international pressure over the past three years as the IAEA compiled worrying details about its nuclear activities.

But formal Security Council involvement opens a new dimension because the U.N. body could impose economic and political sanctions against Iran. Such action is unlikely because of opposition from Russia and China, which have strategic and commercial ties with Tehran.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested Wednesday that Moscow would not support sanctions and he ruled out military action.

"I don't think sanctions as a means to solve a crisis have ever achieved a goal in the recent history," Lavrov said after meeting Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the United Nations.

He added that Russia was "convinced that there is no military solution to this crisis" — an apparent rebuttal to Vice President Dick Cheney's warning this week that Iran would face "meaningful consequences" if it does not back away from an international confrontation over its nuclear program. Cheney did not specify what the U.S. would do, but said it "is keeping all options on the table."

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns suggested America would push for sanctions if appeals and demands failed.

"We believe that next Monday or Tuesday the United Nations Security Council will begin a very active debate about Iran's nuclear ambitions," Burns said Wednesday. "That debate will be designed to shine a very large, intensive spotlight on what we believe to be a clear Iranian (weapons) program."

Burns told the House International Relations Committee that U.S. officials expect the Security Council to consider a statement of condemnation against Iran. He said, however, that the Bush administration would like to go "beyond that to entertain the possibility of a resolution to isolate and hopefully influence (Iran's) behavior."

If Iran does not respond to words and resolutions, "then we believe that the world community should entertain the possibility of sanctions against Iran," Burns said.

ElBaradei's report accused Iran of withholding information, possessing plans linked to nuclear weapons and refusing to freeze uranium enrichment — a possible pathway to nuclear arms.

In comments to the IAEA board meeting, Gregory Schulte, the U.S. delegate to the agency, said the 85 tons of feedstock uranium gas already produced by Iran "if enriched, could produce enough material for about 10 nuclear weapons."

Separately, France, Germany and Britain warned that what is known about Iran's enrichment program could represent "the tip of the iceberg."

Iran reacted angrily to Washington's role in the standoff over its nuclear ambitions.

"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the chief Iranian delegate to the IAEA, said, reading from a statement. "But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll."

He did not elaborate, but diplomats said the comment as possibly a veiled threat to use oil as a weapon. Iran is the second-largest producer within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and has leverage with extremist groups in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East that could harm U.S. interests.

Iran's minister of petroleum, Sayed Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh, however, sought to ease concerns about Iran's oil plans, telling reporters at an OPEC meeting in Vienna: "Iran has no intention whatsoever of reducing its oil exports."

The White House dismissed Iran's threats.

"I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran from the rest of the world," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said the comments reflected the menace posed by Iran.

"Their threats show why leaving a country like that with a nuclear weapon is so dangerous," John Bolton told The Associated Press by phone from Washington.
 
:smoke: Canavar, you disappoint.

Your agenda is showing!

I take back my original comments, as to how Turkey might be the best choice for the "policeman" in the middle east.

From your more recent comments, that would be a bad idea.

Turkey seems most interested in joining the "bash America club", at the damnation of the worlds best interest.

Thanks for the "heads up". :salute:
 
trobinett said:
:smoke: Canavar, you disappoint.

Your agenda is showing!

I take back my original comments, as to how Turkey might be the best choice for the "policeman" in the middle east.

From your more recent comments, that would be a bad idea.

Turkey seems most interested in joining the "bash America club", at the damnation of the worlds best interest.

Thanks for the "heads up". :salute:

You are welcome.



pkk.jpg


http://www.kkk.tsk.mil.tr/internet/00KaraNETicerik/01ana.asp


24b.jpg



:salute:
 
Self interest=nation state. I don't think it's a love for Iran:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/06/AR2006030601513.html
Energy, Iran Spur Turkey's Revival of Nuclear Plans

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, March 7, 2006; A14

ISTANBUL -- Turkey is reviving its long-deferred quest for nuclear power, pressed both by serious energy shortfalls within its own borders and by strident nuclear ambitions in neighboring Iran that threaten to upset a regional balance of power.

"The rise in oil prices and the need for multiple sources of energy make our need for nuclear energy an utmost priority," Energy Minister Hilmi Guler said last month in announcing plans to build as many as five atomic energy plants. The first, to be located on the Black Sea at Sinop, would come on line in 2012 and ease Turkey's costly dependence on natural gas, 90 percent of which arrives by pipeline from Russia and Iran.

With a rapidly expanding economy, a population of 70 million and scarce petroleum deposits, Turkey appears to be a logical candidate for nuclear power. Guler, who made his remarks while visiting a nuclear plant in Virginia, said the new Turkish reactors could provide about a tenth of the 54,000 megawatts the country expects to need over the next two decades.

"Turkey is a very poor country in respect to power. This has made the country very vulnerable," said Fatih Birol, chief international economist at the energy agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a cooperative of 30 countries that fosters good governance. Birol said that after briefing Turkey's foreign and energy ministers in recent weeks, "I think this government is rather determined to go ahead."

Neighboring Iran's nuclear program, which the United States and other countries have called a cover for developing nuclear weapons, also looms over the revival of Turkey's program, which has had numerous false starts since the early 1960s. Iran and Turkey are almost identical in population and economy and regard each other roughly as equals in a famously combustible region with no dominant power.

"Iran with nuclear production will be the dominant power," said Ozdem Sanberk, a former ambassador to Washington who heads the Turkish Economic and Social Studies research group in Istanbul. "There will be an asymmetrical relationship."

Sanberk has argued recently that Turkey has no choice but to pursue a nuclear program of its own under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"If we want to leave an independent country to our future generations, we do not have the luxury to delay," Sanberk wrote.

U.S. officials are trying to use Turkey's unease over developments in Iran as part of international efforts to persuade Tehran to suspend its nuclear program. Last month, the U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Greg Schulte, spent two days in Ankara for what the U.S. Embassy described as "intense dialogue and cooperation" on the Iranian question. Senior officials of Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party, whose roots in Islam afford some entree with Tehran, lately have turned up the volume. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said Turkey was "saddened by Iran's restarting uranium enrichment."

Any Turkish move toward a nuclear weapons program would mark a dramatic departure from long-standing foreign policy and military doctrine. Guided by the slogan of the country's founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, "Peace at home, peace in the world," Turkish diplomats and the powerful general staff have invested heavily in international institutions, deploying troops repeatedly to Afghanistan and ratifying the most stringent additions to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"Turkey's state policy is always: Play the game within the rules," said Mustafa Kibaroglu, a nuclear proliferation expert at Bilkent University in Ankara. But "if Iran goes nuclear, then who knows?"

In the past, Kibaroglu saw merit in a domestic nuclear industry for Turkey. In a recent interview, however, he argued for alternatives, including improvements to the electrical grid, which leaks as much as a quarter of the power it produces.

"I'm not supporting Turkey's nuclear energy program anymore," he said, "because I'm not clear about what the real intention is. Let's put it that way."
 
March 9th

Three Killed, 13 Injured In Bomb Blast In Turkey
http://www.mediafax.ro/english/arti...Injured-In-Bomb-Blast-In-Turkey-462727-9.html


And now nobody has the right to say Turks' new sympathy with Iran is because of Islam.

It is this:

Iran hands over 'PKK Terrorits' to Turkey
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=27307

Iranian police clash with PKK supporters
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-iranian-police-clash-with-pkk-supporters-/2006/02/27/1409151.htm

Iran boosts cooperation with Turkey against PKK
http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-1542.html


Nothing to do with Islam.
While America is bombing Ansar Al Islam in Northern-Iraq, PKK also there is untouched.

It is all about interest not religion.

From your point of view, we should boycot Iran. Give us a reason to do so. It is not that Turks like Iran, it is about interest. But as long you do not do anything against PKK, while Iran is willing to do, it is obvious that we will not boycot Iran.


Or would you boycot Iran when Iran would kill Al-Qaeda terrorists?
 
canavar said:
March 9th

Three Killed, 13 Injured In Bomb Blast In Turkey
http://www.mediafax.ro/english/arti...Injured-In-Bomb-Blast-In-Turkey-462727-9.html


And now nobody has the right to say Turks' new sympathy with Iran is because of Islam.

It is this:

Iran hands over 'PKK Terrorits' to Turkey
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=27307

Iranian police clash with PKK supporters
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-iranian-police-clash-with-pkk-supporters-/2006/02/27/1409151.htm

Iran boosts cooperation with Turkey against PKK
http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-1542.html


Nothing to do with Islam.
While America is bombing Ansar Al Islam in Northern-Iraq, PKK also there is untouched.

It is all about interest not religion.

From your point of view, we should boycot Iran. Give us a reason to do so. It is not that Turks like Iran, it is about interest. But as long you do not do anything against PKK, while Iran is willing to do, it is obvious that we will not boycot Iran.


Or would you boycot Iran when Iran would kill Al-Qaeda terrorists?


First of all, OUR RIGHT to doubt the Turks` doesn`t change because of a couple of articles.

If the Turks` were showing just a little more cooperation with the coalition, they would be surprised at the aid they would receive in their efforts against the PKK from the US, and others.

To make comparisons between the cooperation Turkey gets` from Iran, in regards to the PKK, and what Turkey gets from the United States, in a hosts of other areas` is ridiculous, if not downright juvenile.

Interest, and religion are the same thing.

We would still come down on the side of boycotting Iran, even if they did start to fight the terrorist, Al-Qaeda, or any other group. Its about WMD`s.

As to wanting Turkey to boycott Iran, we don`t really care, just stay out of the way. :bat:
 
trobinett said:
(..)

If the Turks` were showing just a little more cooperation with the coalition, they would be surprised at the aid they would receive in their efforts against the PKK from the US, and others.
(...)

maybe you should chcek your informations where US gets their supplies in Iraq from.
 

Forum List

Back
Top