Look Who's Cozying Up to The Iranians

[Annie]

Surprise:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L13679471.htm

Chirac pushes EU to drop hard line on Iran-diplomats
13 Apr 2005 12:36:47 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA, April 13 (Reuters) - French President Jacques Chirac has been pushing the EU to drop its refusal to consider letting Iran enrich uranium, despite U.S. and European fears Iran could use enrichment technology for weapons, EU diplomats say.

Sharing U.S. suspicions that Iran may have atom bomb ambitions, the European Union's three biggest powers -- France, Britain and Germany -- have demanded Iran give up its nuclear fuel programme in exchange for economic and political benefits.

Iran says it has no interest in the bomb and wants nuclear power plants to meet booming demand for electricity. Tehran has frozen its enrichment programme, but refuses to permanently give up what it sees as a sovereign right to produce low-enriched uranium fuel for its nuclear power programme.

The Iran-EU talks had been deadlocked over the issue of "objective guarantees" that Iran's atomic programme will not be used to make weapons, with the Europeans insisting that the only acceptable guarantee was a permanent cessation of enrichment.

But the talks took a new turn last month when negotiators from the EU's "big three" (EU3) and the office of EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana agreed in Paris to consider an Iranian proposal that it keep a small-scale enrichment programme that would be closely monitored by the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Several diplomats said this shift -- which came just after Washington bolstered the EU position by offering its own incentives if Tehran scrapped enrichment -- was mainly the result of pressure by Chirac, who pushed the French Foreign Ministry to drop its refusal to consider Iran's plan.

"Jacques Chirac ... is the one who's taking the Iranian proposal under consideration," said an EU3 diplomat, adding the French president had the final say on foreign policy matters.

NUCLEAR PROGRAMME

French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei denied there was any split between Chirac and the Foreign Ministry on the Iranian nuclear programme. "On the Iran dossier, there's one, and only one French position," Mattei said.

Other EU3 diplomats confirmed Chirac had urged his negotiators to consider Iran's proposal it be allowed to have an enrichment plant with 3,000 centrifuges -- which could produce enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb per year.

"Chirac seems to have taken things a bit further forward than everyone else, but his comments do not really represent the official French position on objective guarantees," one said.

"I think it says more about the internal machinations in Paris than anything else," the EU3 diplomat added.

One diplomat close to the EU-Iran talks said the decision to consider Iran's proposal was partly "diplomatic politeness".

But diplomats said it was also a way of avoiding positions that could undermine moderate presidential candidates favouring increased engagement with the West in Iran's June 17 election.

"We don't want to do anything before June," a diplomat said.

When the EU-Iran talks began in January, the EU3 unanimously opposed the idea of Iran keeping its enrichment programme, which Tehran had concealed from the United Nations for nearly two decades.

EU diplomats close to the talks said this was still the Europeans' official position, though they said Chirac was among those who thought Iran's proposal might be acceptable.

Asked if France's view on Iranian enrichment had changed, Mattei said: "Our wish is to obtain objective guarantees from Iran for the peaceful use of its nuclear programme."

Iran has recently made a point of publicly praising the French position. Ahead of last month's Paris talks, a senior Iranian security official lauded Chirac for his "positive view". (Additional reporting by Kerstin Gehmlich and Jon Boyle in Paris, Paul Taylor in Brussels, Madeline Chambers in London and Paul Hughes in Tehran)

 

[Yurt]

:arabia: he is a kiss up.

 

[BR-549]

is a trouble causing dipshit... Jeeez the French people have got to be the most gutless in all of Europe.

 

[Gunny]

Wonder how many times Chirac thinks he can tug on Superman's cape before he gets his ass kicked .............

 

[Annie]

Wonder how many times Chirac thinks he can tug on Superman's cape before he gets his ass kicked .............

Past time for some repercussions. :chains:

 

[Gunny]

Ooooh ......I wanna play too! :firing:

 

[Falk]

...a small-scale enrichment programme that would be closely monitored by the U.N. nuclear watchdog

Now, what's the harm in that? Some countries actually got both nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in their possesion...
/Falk

 

[Annie]

Now, what's the harm in that? Some countries actually got both nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in their possesion...
/Falk

Sorry child, I have not seen that you are ready for enlightenment.

 

[Falk]

Sorry child, I have not seen that you are ready for enlightenment.

But seriosly, what kind of threat does Iran pose? I am more concerned about countries that have developed real nuclear weapons, like China, India, Pakistan, Israel and Russia. Irans effort to enrich is okay, given a certain insight to the research. Let France make a soft approach, if it works, - fine!
I don't think we would like other countries to control what areas we were to research.

The most likeley country to actually resort to the use of nuclear weapons are countries under preassure like Pakistan/India or Isreal/The rest of the Arab world. China and Russia seems more likley to "loose" some weapons wich ends up with some terrorist somewhere. As for US or Europe neither case seems very likeley.

 

[Annie]

But seriosly, what kind of threat does Iran pose? I am more concerned about countries that have developed real nuclear weapons, like China, India, Pakistan, Israel and Russia. Irans effort to enrich is okay, given a certain insight to the research. Let France make a soft approach, if it works, - fine!
I don't think we would like other countries to control what areas we were to research.

The most likeley country to actually resort to the use of nuclear weapons are countries under preassure like Pakistan/India or Isreal/The rest of the Arab world. China and Russia seems more likley to "loose" some weapons wich ends up with some terrorist somewhere. As for US or Europe neither case seems very likeley.

Iran is part of the 'Arab world'.

 

[dilloduck]

But seriosly, what kind of threat does Iran pose? I am more concerned about countries that have developed real nuclear weapons, like China, India, Pakistan, Israel and Russia. Irans effort to enrich is okay, given a certain insight to the research. Let France make a soft approach, if it works, - fine!
I don't think we would like other countries to control what areas we were to research.

The most likeley country to actually resort to the use of nuclear weapons are countries under preassure like Pakistan/India or Isreal/The rest of the Arab world. China and Russia seems more likley to "loose" some weapons wich ends up with some terrorist somewhere. As for US or Europe neither case seems very likeley.

I'm still searching here but I think it poses a serious threat to entire religious beliefs (Christianity and Judaism).

 

[Falk]

Iran is part of the 'Arab world'.

So? Do you think Iran will develop intercontinental missiles carrying warheads and an own SDI preventing US from striking back? Who on earth would start a nuclear war on us?!?

I'm still searching here but I think it poses a serious threat to entire religious beliefs (Christianity and Judaism).

I can't tell you what is a threat to religious believs. But it is not violence that makes people loose faith.

 

[Annie]

So? Do you think Iran will develop intercontinental missiles carrying warheads and an own SDI preventing US from striking back? Who on earth would start a nuclear war on us?!?

12/7/41 and 9/11/01.

I can't tell you what is a threat to religious believs. But it is not violence that makes people loose faith.

That is correct.

 

[Falk]

12/7/41 and 9/11/01.

Really... I don't like to relate todays war on terrorism to WWII. The whole political scene was different and the discussion will run long trying to find similarities.

9/11 is a different story, this is today. And what we have learned is that small groups of highly motivated people actually can pose a threat. But that is still not another nation attacking us. The path to security lies not in the invation of countries, but to increase understanding and bonding between people. By supressing millions of people with brute force we only push more people into the dark, where they can forge their revenge. And they will be higly motivated too.

This is what I think.

Flak - obviously you don't have a great deal of knowledge on the issue. First of the other countries that you named have either had these arsenals for a long time or allies of ours. Then you have to realize that we are in the middle of this war on terror, where do you think the war is taking place? where are the majority of terrorist supporting countries from? Yep, the middle east! What kind of threat does Iran pose? when their government has rallies where their followers chant "death to America" do you really need to ask this question?

I am still not scared of Iran. I just don't think the path to victory over terrorism runs even close to invasion of the countries we don't trust. War actually creates terrorists, because when you have lost the fighting ability, but not your cause or faith, you will have to resolve to what aviable means there are. Car bombs for some and sticks for others.

/Falk

 

[Falk]

The war on terrorism needs to run it's path through any country where a man will decide he hates Americans enough to strap a bomb to himself!
.
.
.
I don't feel all too threatened by Iran either, I know we have the means to remove any threat from them.

My point exactly. Only these men can be found everywhere, and when we defeated every other nation they will be within.
And as for beeing scared, see what I mean? Why be scared of the nation of Iran!?! I'm scared of those who has got no nation.

/Falk

 

[Said1]

Really... I don't like to relate todays war on terrorism to WWII. The whole political scene was different and the discussion will run long trying to find similarities.

The wars are different, but the answers to some of today's conflicts lay in the past - as in resulting from the past. Here's a small, yet significant hint: Arab nationalism & The Muslim Brotherhood pre/post-WWII.

9/11 is a different story, this is today. And what we have learned is that small groups of highly motivated people actually can pose a threat. But that is still not another nation attacking us. The path to security lies not in the invation of countries, but to increase understanding and bonding between people. By supressing millions of people with brute force we only push more people into the dark, where they can forge their revenge. And they will be higly motivated too.

Here's another hint: Islamic fundementalist ideology pre/post-WWII-present.

This is what I think.



I am still not scared of Iran. I just don't think the path to victory over terrorism runs even close to invasion of the countries we don't trust. War actually creates terrorists, because when you have lost the fighting ability, but not your cause or faith, you will have to resolve to what aviable means there are. Car bombs for some and sticks for others.

/Falk

Here's what I think: Research above mentioned topics- pls and thank-you.

 

[BR-549]

Really... I don't like to relate todays war on terrorism to WWII. The whole political scene was different and the discussion will run long trying to find similarities.

9/11 is a different story, this is today. And what we have learned is that small groups of highly motivated people actually can pose a threat. But that is still not another nation attacking us. The path to security lies not in the invation of countries, but to increase understanding and bonding between people. By supressing millions of people with brute force we only push more people into the dark, where they can forge their revenge. And they will be higly motivated too.

This is what I think.



I am still not scared of Iran. I just don't think the path to victory over terrorism runs even close to invasion of the countries we don't trust. War actually creates terrorists, because when you have lost the fighting ability, but not your cause or faith, you will have to resolve to what aviable means there are. Car bombs for some and sticks for others.

/Falk

My gawd son do you go to the bathroom by yourself? Mommy still cutting up your meat? What color is the sky in your world?

 

[drac]

But seriosly, what kind of threat does Iran pose? I am more concerned about countries that have developed real nuclear weapons, like China, India, Pakistan, Israel and Russia. Irans effort to enrich is okay, given a certain insight to the research. Let France make a soft approach, if it works, - fine!
I don't think we would like other countries to control what areas we were to research.

The most likeley country to actually resort to the use of nuclear weapons are countries under preassure like Pakistan/India or Isreal/The rest of the Arab world. China and Russia seems more likley to "loose" some weapons wich ends up with some terrorist somewhere. As for US or Europe neither case seems very likeley.

Look, the threat presented by countries like iran is its support of various group whos method of fighting includes and mostly based on terror. Iran does not have to have intercontinental nukes to be dangerous. The biggest problem imho is the "dirty" bomb or a small nuke placed in the suitcase. If Iran has technical and material ability to produce a small nuke, say powerfull enough to whipe out a small city but small enough not to produce to much of the side effect, what would keep iran gov. from giving it to one the group i mention above?
That group can use it against our allies or against us (remember cole?). We cannot really blame iran for it, especially if they cover thier track very well. And you know how hard it is to go for small terror group, look at current war on terror. So they would have indirectly attack us and we would not have much of the options to go on.

just a thought

 

[drac]

i am all for iran to have the nuclear energy station to be used in peacefull way, given it is monitored by say un 24x7. My only question (and it is not only for iran) is how much energy can be created by building a station and is it really benefitial by going that way. What about price of spended fuel? It presents a lot of danger to the future generation, it must be safely stored and guarded. Does not the danger and cost associated with it outweights the benefits? Look at Chernobyl (ukraine), those guys are still dealing with it and it will not go away soon.