Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
March 24, 2005
Nuclear Accord Eludes Iran and Europeans
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
ARIS, March 23 - Iran and its European negotiating partners struggled without success on Wednesday to break an impasse on reaching a long-term agreement on nuclear, economic and security cooperation.
But the Iranian side presented new proposals to provide further assurances to the Europeans that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful, and the two sides have agreed to meet again soon, participants said.
"We had rather extensive talks, and we presented a number of ideas on how we can move forward," M. Javad Zarif, ambassador to the United Nations and the leader of the delegation, said in a telephone interview. A European who took part in the meeting said, "By the standards of international group bureaucracies and negotiations, we've moved forward a bit."
Senior negotiators from Iran on one side and France, Germany, Britain and the European Union on the other met at the French Foreign Ministry to review three months of negotiations aimed at providing objective proof that Iran's nuclear program is not intended to produce nuclear weapons.
Among the ideas presented by the Iranians, participants said, was a phased approach including enhanced monitoring and technical guarantees devised to allow Iran to again enrich uranium, a process used in producing nuclear energy and nuclear bombs. But the Europeans reject that approach, arguing that Iran's nuclear activities are so suspicious that the country should never again be allowed to enrich uranium.
Sirus Naseri, a senior Iranian negotiator, told reporters after the talks on Wednesday that Iran would not give in to the European demand that it give up delicate nuclear activities. "This is not something we are prepared to consider," he said. He reiterated the Iranian demand that concrete progress must be made soon. "Time is of the essence," he said.
A European participant said, "We are no further forward on this issue."
The meeting on Wednesday was the first by the negotiating teams since the Bush administration softened its position to allow the Europeans to offer broader economic incentives to Iran. In exchange, the United States has extracted a pledge from the Europeans to refer Iran's case to the United Nations for possible censure or penalties, if the negotiations fail.
The Europeans laid out the difficulties in the talks on March 10 in a confidential, four-page status report that acknowledged that "progress is not as fast as we would wish."
But the report added that recent international support for the European negotiating process, particularly from the United States and Russia, "has strengthened the prospects for a satisfactory outcome."
The report said that the Europeans were proposing that Iran acquire a light-water research reactor to replace a planned heavy-water research reactor, which is designed to produce plutonium that could be used to fuel weapons.
According to weapons specialists, plutonium is often preferred to enriched uranium for compact warheads on missiles because it takes less to produce a significant blast. Light-water reactors are considered better for producing electricity than plutonium.
The Europeans are considering dispatching teams of specialists to Iran to investigate the possibility of providing it with such a reactor, a European negotiator said. That plan would ultimately require American support because some of the technologies needed are barred by United States restrictions. [...]
onedomino said:The E3, Russia, and the IAEA are trying to forestall an American or Israeli attack on Mullah nuclear facilities. Now that Bush has offered a few carrots, such as Iranian entry into the WTO, the E3 apparently have agreed to refer the matter to the UNSC if (when) negotiation (appeasement) fails. The point is moot. Referring the matter to the UNSC for action is not a serious alternative course of action and the Europeans know it. It would only be effective to refer the matter to the UNSC for paralysis. The Mullahs know that they can defy the UNSC and never risk physical attack. What if trade sanctions are put into effect by the UNSC? In that unlikely the event, it will not be Mullahs suffering shortages; it will be ordinary Iranians. America should privately let the Mullahs know that not only their nuke facilities are at risk. The Mullahs need to know that if we are forced to attack nuke bomb making facilities in Iran, then America will specifically hunt them, by name. If the Mullahs do not cease their relentless effort to obtain nuclear weapons, then they must understand that spider-holes are in their future.
onedomino said:America has many military options short of all out invasion. The Mullahs could personally suffer from air and/or special operations attacks. Not the least interesting option is an American armed Kurdish insurgency from northwestern Iran.
Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Amid the Mullah proclamations of death to America and Israel, it is intolerable that Iran possess nuclear weapons. Beyond the threat that the Mullahs may give nuke weapons to their terrorist minions, they are racing to advance their current NK, Ukrainian, and Russian missile technology to ICBM standards. Then all our actions would be at the point of an atomic Mullah gun. Further, even with their current missile technology, nuke armed Mullahs would threaten American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. That cannot be permitted. The most fundamental human instinct drives American desire to prevent the Mullahs from possessing nuclear weapons: self-preservation.Merlin1047 said:Looking at this from a non-American view, the situation begs the question - Who died and left the USA in charge of determining which of the world's countries are allowed to have nuclear facilities or weapons and which are not?
Granted, this situation is not in our best interest, but who are we to arbitrarily decided that Iran is not allowed to dabble in nukes so long as they have not made some sort of direct threat?
Merlin1047 said:Granted, this situation is not in our best interest, but who are we to arbitrarily decided that Iran is not allowed to dabble in nukes so long as they have not made some sort of direct threat?
Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant
Uzi Mahnaimi
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1522978,00.html
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme. (the US probably has similar "plans")
The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave initial authorisation for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert.
Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Irans Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israels elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.
The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israels way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed.
Tehran claims that its programme is designed for peaceful purposes but Israeli and American intelligence officials who have met to share information in recent weeks are convinced that it is intended to produce nuclear weapons.
The Israeli government responded cautiously yesterday to an announcement by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, that America would support Britain, France and Germany in offering economic incentives for Tehran to abandon its programme.
In return, the European countries promised to back Washington in referring Iran to the United Nations security council if the latest round of talks fails to secure agreement.
Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister, said he believed that diplomacy was the only way to deal with the issue. But he warned: The idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us but for the whole world.
Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, emphasised on Friday that Iran would face stronger action if it failed to respond. But yesterday Iran rejected the initiative, which provides for entry to the World Trade Organisation and a supply of spare parts for airliners if it co-operates.
No pressure, bribe or threat can make Iran give up its legitimate right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, said an Iranian spokesman.
US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations.
