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.
'Danger of war' exists with Iran: Sarkozy
Dec 12 01:01 PM US/Eastern
French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned of a risk of a war with Iran if Israel considered its security seriously threatened by Tehran's nuclear drive in a magazine interview to be published Thursday.
Sarkozy also said he was ready to travel to Tehran to discuss a civilian nuclear partnership if the country steps up its cooperation with the UN atomic watchdog.
"The problem for us is not so much the risk that the Americans launch a military intervention, but that the Israelis consider their security to be truly threatened," Sarkozy told Le Nouvel Observateur.
"Everyone agrees on the fact that what the Iranians are doing has no civilian explanation," Sarkozy said, referring to Tehran's uranium enrichment work. "The only debate is about whether they will develop a military capacity in one or five years."
Israel considers Iran its number one enemy following repeated calls by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map.
"The danger of a war exists," said the French president, who insisted he had "never been in favour of war."
Sarkozy held out the prospect of a nuclear partnership with Tehran if it improved its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), saying he had the "trust of the Israelis and the Americans" on the matter.
"If Iran allows the IAEA to carry out its checks, I would be ready to travel to Tehran to discuss a collaboration on civilian nuclear energy," he said.
The Vienna-based watchdog said last month that Iran had taken important steps in revealing the extent of its nuclear programme but was still defying UN demands that it suspend uranium enrichment.
An IAEA delegation arrived in Tehran Sunday to tackle outstanding questions over its nuclear programme.
The United States and other Western powers want Iran to suspend enrichment completely, suspecting it of seeking to develop a nuclear bomb -- a charge denied by Iran.
...
Truly, I wanted him to win, just being a spoiler. Now he turns into being more strong than Blair. Go figure.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071212170119.e60b1ecw&show_article=1
Perhaps we can get a learned opinion from DeadCanDance on Sarkozy's statements concerning Iran's uranium enrichment?
Or he'll avoid this thread like the plague.
Sarkozy also said he was ready to travel to Tehran to discuss a civilian nuclear partnership if the country steps up its cooperation with the UN atomic watchdog.
I agree with him. More transparency and inspections.
Nuclear confrontation : Needed for Iran:U.S. muscle, European diplomacy
By Alan L. Isenberg
Published: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2004
STANFORD, California: Earlier this month, the so-called EU Three Britain, France and Germany achieved an important victory for global security, convincing Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing activities pending further negotiation on its nuclear question. Though Iran claims that it does not desire a nuclear bomb, the West has long been skeptical of the oil-rich state's contention that it seeks a nuclear fuel cycle for energy purposes alone. Europe and the United States (and of course Israel) will sleep better knowing that Tehran is not pursuing enrichment activities, whatever their alleged purpose.
But the EU3 agreement, which fails to discuss consequences for Iran if it breaks the deal, is vulnerable to being undermined not only by Iran but also by the United States; both have already raised eyebrows in the wake of the accord. Iran raced to produce uranium hexafluoride, a gas that can be enriched into bomb fuel, before it began to observe the temporary suspension on Monday. And both President George W. Bush and outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell have publicly aired their suspicions that Iran will continue its drive for nuclear weapons under cover of the deal.
At the moment, administration hawks are pressing to confront the mullahs at the United Nations Security Council, where economic sanctions could be considered; calls for using force and for regime change are likely to follow.
Military action is inadvisable at this point, because of a dearth of solid intelligence and the secretive, geographically diffuse nature of Iran's nuclear sites. If the issue reaches the Security Council with the United States and Europe continuing along divergent paths, the inevitable deadlock will deal a severe and lasting blow to international security. Therefore, the agreement must be fortified to keep the Iranians honest, the Europeans effectively engaged and the U.S. hawks bridled....
Sarkozy mulls Iran nuclear co-op
Wed, 12 Dec 2007
The French President says he would be willing to go to Tehran to discuss nuclear cooperation if Iran allowed IAEA snap inspections.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=34723§ionid=351020104
Sarkozy did not specify what kind of nuclear collaboration he was prepared to consider with Iran, but he has repeatedly expressed willingness for sharing its expertise in nuclear power to help other countries.
"We must not refuse civilian nuclear energy to countries that respect the rules," Sarkozy said, adding that he believed in "firmness and dialogue" with Tehran.
How do you expect the French assistance would be any different than what Russia said over a year ago, 'we'll do the enrichment necessary, for civilian use?'Sarkozy mulls Iran nuclear co-op
Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:52:55
Sounds good. Dialog is always prudent. Nice to see the president of France engaging in direct negotiation. I wonder why Bush doesn't put his own personal skill and credibility on the line, like Frenchie does?
Fine. If Iran plays by the rules, France is willing to help them develop civilian nuclear technology. I don't find anything here to disagree with. As long as there is a robust system of checks and inspections to make sure they don't use their enriched uranium in any military technologies.
Good. Iran respects the rules, and they can have civilian nuclear power, as is their right.
.
Sarkozy also said he was ready to travel to Tehran to discuss a civilian nuclear partnership if the country steps up its cooperation with the UN atomic watchdog.
I agree with him. More transparency and inspections.
"Everyone agrees on the fact that what the Iranians are doing has no civilian explanation," Sarkozy said, referring to Tehran's uranium enrichment work. "The only debate is about whether they will develop a military capacity in one or five years."
Diplomacy, the US should try it some time, it's a useful part of foreign policy.
When others are ok as your surrogates, that IS diplomacy.
With whom have we not tried diplomacy? Got some names to go with the accusation?
Iraq, noooo, cross that one off the list.
Iran........Cheney - words to the effect of "bomb the bastards"
Oops too late for diplomacy there, which is why Sarkozy may be useful. It will enable the US to back off but not lose face. Obviously the White House isn't driving that one, must be Condi.
Diplomacy was tried with Iraq prior to the First Gulf War all the way up until we invaded. Twelve+ years of diplomacy and one spanking later, Saddam was just as stupid, arrogant, defiant and noncompliant as he was Day One. The ceasefire agreement was in fact use of diplomacy and it was not the US that repeatedly violated its terms year after year.
Since the US has in fact made no attack on Iran, and in fact ARE trying diplomacy, I'd say you're jumping to conclusions not supported by facts.
As long as Cheney is kept chained up in his special basement office at the White House, I'll concede your point
One, I don't know what you're quoting that he said. And you'll have to excuse that I'm not willing to just buy off that he's said anything of the sort what with all the words put in Bush's and Cheney's mouthes the past 7 years that neither said.
Two, that being said, Cheney is Vice President, not President. He can't order anything more than the bombing of his basement for roaches.
And personally, I never have cared for the smarmy bastard all the way back to the 80s and I think anyone calling for Bush's impeachment leaving Cheney in control is a complete and utter fool.
Don't underestimate his power in this administration.
As for Cheney running the country... it's the primary reason I never even gave a thought to impeachment.
One, I don't know what you're quoting that he said. And you'll have to excuse that I'm not willing to just buy off that he's said anything of the sort what with all the words put in Bush's and Cheney's mouthes the past 7 years that neither said.
Two, that being said, Cheney is Vice President, not President. He can't order anything more than the bombing of his basement for roaches.
And personally, I never have cared for the smarmy bastard all the way back to the 80s and I think anyone calling for Bush's impeachment leaving Cheney in control is a complete and utter fool.
I'm with you on that one - but I'm pretty sure I've had the good sense to keep my keyboard shut when it comes to impeachment...though if I were rude enough to pronounce on it I'll take it back. None of my business.
But Cheney has had a lot of power in this administration. Well maybe up until now I suppose. I hope his influence has waned considerably. Maybe Condi is able to persuade Bush that Cheney isn't helping much, if so, more power to her.
