NationStates Jolt Archive

Iran Strikes Back at Big Five Decision

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer


[TEHRAN, Iran - Iran struck back Tuesday at the Big Five's decision to refer the country's nuclear file to the Security Council, saying the move has no legal justification and would be the end of diplomacy.

At a London meeting that lasted into the early hours of Tuesday, envoys of the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia agreed to recommend that the International Atomic Energy Agency report Iran to the U.N. Security Council.]



Well, I fail to see this thing turning out diplomatically. I may be wrong, but I see war on the horizon. My question is not whether or not there will be war, but who will be in the coalition if and when war begins anew.


And on a side note, I feel we will easily be able to fight a war with Iran quite easily, considering that the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq will funnel over the border to fight us in Iran. So we'll be pretty much in the same boat, but with another madman in jail.

Maybe my war with Iran post wasnt that far off after all...

War with Iran?

That's bad. Just bad.

If nobody's noticed, we've [America] essentially sniped the strongest neighbors on either side of Iran.

The important thing is International consensus. We can't go off half-cocked like we did against Iraq. As slow a proposition as it may be, we have to convince the U.N. that all diplomatic solutions have failed and the only alternative is military action BEFORE action is taken.

At the very least, we ought to have NATO's backing first.

Though I suspect that Iran will back down to a united front from the international community. They want to make this about U.S.A. vs. Iran in the eyes of the world and not Iran vs. The World.

The important thing is International consensus. We can't go off half-cocked like we did against Iraq. As slow a proposition as it may be, we have to convince the U.N. that all diplomatic solutions have failed and the only alternative is military action BEFORE action is taken.

At the very least, we ought to have NATO's backing first.
Are you sure you were paying attention to the run up to the one in Iraq?

Are you sure you were paying attention to the run up to the one in Iraq?

Pretty sure. I remember that negotiations for Saddam's exile were cut short by the U.S. Invasion.

Pretty sure. I remember that negotiations for Saddam's exile were cut short by the U.S. Invasion.
Right: the current US government doesn't have much of a knack for negotiation, to say the least. The chimp is to going through processes before cutting the Gordian knot what Stephen Hawking is to tap dancing.

-snip-
Yes, there needs to international opposition to Irans policies, and international cooperation to do something about it. All I'm seeing is the battle spilling out of Iran, into Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention seeing any other country that gets in the mix up. America will not go it alone, in my opinon. Pulling it off alone would be insaine, the world would deem us as bad as Iran (if not worse, we'd be the bully), and I doubt the American people will put up with it (I won't). Not to mention the martial strain on the services.

We need not only international consensus, but international commitments to help with the real business end of things.

EDIT: Rereading this, I realized I look like a hawk.
I do not support military action of any kind at the moment.
I need lots more reasons than a nuclear plant and threats that'll take years to fulfill.

I myself think that if iran should stop there nulear programme so should the rest of the world.
What would bush or blair think if france said stop they would tell them to get stuffed.
As an englishman i think both blair and bush have gone too far and someone needs to stop them soon!

Well, I fail to see this thing turning out diplomatically. I may be wrong, but I see war on the horizon. My question is not whether or not there will be war, but who will be in the coalition if and when war begins anew.

Well I wouldn't jump the gun (ba dum tich) just yet. Military action would take a long time to get going. And the Iranians are actually on to something- they do have the law behind for now; I'd like to actually see the legal evidence supplied because as of today there still hasn't been any solid evidence they have done anything illegal.

What I'm more suprised about in the midst of this is China's u-turn and decide to support the referal to the UNSC.

I think they might be the key to solving this diplomatically....somehow.

Right: the current US government doesn't have much of a knack for negotiation, to say the least. The chimp is to going through processes before cutting the Gordian knot what Stephen Hawking is to tap dancing.

Well, that might do for George W.'s little prick-waving dickfight against Saddam Hussein, but if we really intend military action agains Iran, we're gonna need U.N. or at least NATO's blessing.

Iran jeddan enerji-ye nuklear lazem darad. Enerji az Torkmenistan ke anha miforoushad xeyli geroone. Mota'sefane Amrikayiha fekr mikonand ke keshvaremoon faqat por az terroristhast. Az shenidan-e an qamgin shodam... Iran, yeki az qadimitarin keshvarha-ye donia, keshvare i ke motamadden darad, keshvare Ferdous o Hafez... Vali Amrikayiha midoonand hame behtar az mardome Iran...

Iran jeddan enerji-ye nuklear lazem darad. Enerji az Torkmenistan ke anha miforoushad xeyli geroone. Mota'sefane Amrikayiha fekr mikonand ke keshvaremoon faqat por az terroristhast. Az shenidan-e an qamgin shodam... Iran, yeki az qadimitarin keshvarha-ye donia, keshvare i ke motamadden darad, keshvare Ferdous o Hafez... Vali Amrikayiha midoonand hame behtar az mardome Iran...
Ik heb een stinkdier in mijn ondergoed.

Ik heb een stinkdier in mijn ondergoed.
I have studied that in my undergrad...is that right?

If yar so clava as you think, Amerikaners, translate it to Englisch yourself... You always know bettah whats the best fur the world... First you should clean your own "garbage" with Eraq und Afghanestoon... I see you dont do so well... Your respect for the Arabic natives is juuust disguisting...

Iran Strikes Back at Big Five Decision

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer


[TEHRAN, Iran - Iran struck back Tuesday at the Big Five's decision to refer the country's nuclear file to the Security Council, saying the move has no legal justification and would be the end of diplomacy.

At a London meeting that lasted into the early hours of Tuesday, envoys of the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia agreed to recommend that the International Atomic Energy Agency report Iran to the U.N. Security Council.]

Well, I fail to see this thing turning out diplomatically. I may be wrong, but I see war on the horizon. My question is not whether or not there will be war, but who will be in the coalition if and when war begins anew.

And on a side note, I feel we will easily be able to fight a war with Iran quite easily, considering that the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq will funnel over the border to fight us in Iran. So we'll be pretty much in the same boat, but with another madman in jail.
We don't need another war, but allowing a rouge state like Iran to have nuclear weapons is tatamount to giving a loaded gun to a four-year-old ... or to a moron! :headbang:

I have studied that in my undergrad...is that right?

You're close. ;)

If yar so clava as you think, Amerikaners, translate it to Englisch yourself... You always know bettah whats the best fur the world... First you should clean your own "garbage" with Eraq und Afghanestoon... I see you dont do so well... Your respect for the Arabic natives is juuust disguisting...

Welcome :rolleyes:

If yar so clava as you think, Amerikaners, translate it to Englisch yourself... You always know bettah whats the best fur the world... First you should clean your own "garbage" with Eraq und Afghanestoon... I see you dont do so well... Your respect for the Arabic natives is juuust disguisting...



YOU TELL THEM BABY!!! HOWEVER THE ARABIC NATIVES HAVE BEEN KNOW TO START FIGHTS THEN THE WIMP OUT AND CALL US THE BAD PARTY!

Things must be clear here fella...
Bush and Blairs reasons for war may be dubious but mine were not. There was a sick dictator ruining the peoples lives there and we already knew from a decade earlier what he was like... I sometimes think 'means to and end i suppose'. Saddam is in gaol and eventually Iraq will be a democracy. Most of the middle east has dodgy records regarding how it treats its citizens and they all need to be looked at... Iran is just next on the list.

Of course you lot have been fighting each other down there for thousands of years. Peace will never be installed in the middle east. Not unless the west forces it upon you.

Things must be clear here fella...
Bush and Blairs reasons for war may be dubious but mine were not.
You didn't actually declare the war though, and there wasn't a single mention of human rights by either Bush or Blair, just WMDs and al queda. Both of these have been proven to be nonsense, so the war was started under false pretences.

As far as Iran goes, this is worth bearing in mind:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-01-29T151015Z_01_N196487_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-STOPLOSS.xml
presumably the only reason Bush is going through channels with the UN for once is because he knows the American army is already stretched to thin to carry out another invasion, and so is hoping that he can persuade the UN to do it for him.

You didn't actually declare the war though, and there wasn't a single mention of human rights by either Bush or Blair, just WMDs and al queda. Both of these have been proven to be nonsense, so the war was started under false pretences.

As far as Iran goes, this is worth bearing in mind:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-01-29T151015Z_01_N196487_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-STOPLOSS.xml
presumably the only reason Bush is going through channels with the UN for once is because he knows the American army is already stretched to thin to carry out another invasion, and so is hoping that he can persuade the UN to do it for him.

Human rights were mentioned however they were never as sensationalised by the media, especially once we decided to go to war.

I think the Un is losing its authority, who are you to tell people how to behave and then not be able to enforce it... This will be the same with Iran - the invasion will happen it just depends whether it will be commanded by the UN. I think China as was said previously is the key to this. How will the UN cope with the inevitable east/west clash in the next few years?

Human rights were mentioned however they were never as sensationalised by the media, especially once we decided to go to war.
They were mentioned in passing, but the excuse given for the invasion, by both Blair and Bush was WMDs: claiming that Hussein's human rights record excuses deposes him now that this has turned out to be complete and utter crap is appallingly cynical and far from very convincing.

I think the Un is losing its authority, who are you to tell people how to behave and then not be able to enforce it... This will be the same with Iran - the invasion will happen it just depends whether it will be commanded by the UN. I think China as was said previously is the key to this. How will the UN cope with the inevitable east/west clash in the next few years?
The UN is certainly losing it's authority: for a start it seems powerless to take any kind of reprisal against an American GOP who takes it for granted that UN directives don't apply to his country.
On what grounds is a clash between the west and China inevitable?

It may not be a physical clash but the US and China (and eventually India) will be a t logger heads - the oil will run out and the two states will race with each other as it were to claim what ever they can. They both have very different ideologies and a clash such as that between two economic giants will be disasterous. Once china mobilises its billion population whether it be in industry or war, the rest of the world, particularly the US dosn't stand a chance. I can seriously see another cold war scenario with china fighting for superpower status - which America is quite enjoying being the only one in the category now.

The important thing is International consensus. We can't go off half-cocked like we did against Iraq. As slow a proposition as it may be, we have to convince the U.N. that all diplomatic solutions have failed and the only alternative is military action BEFORE action is taken.

At the very least, we ought to have NATO's backing first.

Though I suspect that Iran will back down to a united front from the international community. They want to make this about U.S.A. vs. Iran in the eyes of the world and not Iran vs. The World.

I have the feeling that the US is waiting for backing on this. That said, I don't believe that Russia or China will veto - they will probably abstain, which still works.

Iran will not back down. Russia and China also have severe problems with Islamic militants and although they would like the business of oil and supplying nuclear fuel for reactors, they don't want trouble. Trouble is bad for business. Iran and not a few Arab countries view possession of nukes as an Islam vs. the World thing.

They won't back down.

We don't need another war, but allowing a rouge state like Iran to have nuclear weapons is tatamount to giving a loaded gun to a four-year-old ... or to a moron! :headbang:

Oh, beware the attack of the lipstick states.

Iran has so far done nothing against international law. They are entitled to nuclear power. They are entitled to nuclear weapons. The UN should be rendered ineffectual in such a situation so that it is made clear what this will be about: hypocritical world policing by Western Europe and the US.

Iran has so far done nothing against international law. They are entitled to nuclear power. They are entitled to nuclear weapons.

Nuclear power. Yes.

Nculear weapons. No. Not under NPT that the Iranians themselves signed for.

Nuclear power. Yes.

Nculear weapons. No. Not under NPT that the Iranians themselves signed for.

You'll have to excuse Fass. He might be under the impression that "international law" means anything that the US and other Western nations don't like.

Iran has so far done nothing against international law. They are entitled to nuclear power. They are entitled to nuclear weapons.

Iran, entitled to nuclear weapons?! That is just like saying that Al Qaeda is entitled to them. This will dissovle into the whole NPT debate, I am sure. On which, you are dead wrong Fass. And if there were no NPT, you would just be dead.

Iran, entitled to nuclear weapons?! That is just like saying that Al Qaeda is entitled to them. This will dissovle into the whole NPT debate, I am sure. On which, you are dead wrong Fass. And if there were no NPT, you would just be dead.
I'm not sure about that last part. But I bet that Sweden would be a warmer place than it is today.

I'm not sure about that last part. But I bet that Sweden would be a warmer place than it is today.
Spain's colder than little exiled Sweden today.

Spain's colder than little exiled Sweden today.
Well, if the Spanish got busy with making more greenhouse gases, it would be warmer.

The US is on the verge of crossing a line. Again. And I'm fully convinced that the US is now the greatest threat to world peace in the modern world.

Perhaps it's time the rest of the world end the power of the United States to threatan world peace and security.

Well, if the Spanish got busy with making more greenhouse gases, it would be warmer.
Damn Kyoto treaty adherents, always making their country colder for the better of the planet.

The US is on the verge of crossing a line. Again. And I'm fully convinced that the US is now the greatest threat to world peace in the modern world.

Perhaps it's time the rest of the world end the power of the United States to threatan world peace and security.

With what?

The US is on the verge of crossing a line. Again. And I'm fully convinced that the US is now the greatest threat to world peace in the modern world.

Perhaps it's time the rest of the world end the power of the United States to threatan world peace and security.

Wow, so you want to Start WWIII to insure world peace, and potentially start a nuclear war. I hope I am completely misreading your statement, because if I am not this may be the most Hypocritical arguement I have read on the forums.

The US is on the verge of crossing a line. Again. And I'm fully convinced that the US is now the greatest threat to world peace in the modern world.

Perhaps it's time the rest of the world end the power of the United States to threatan world peace and security.
If you read carefully, you'll find that four other nations are also recommending the matter be put before the Security Council.

As I recall, the demand by most opponents of the last US expedition was that the US take it before the UN Security Council, and let it be handled through the UN.

The US seems to be doing that. And they are NOT alone. Four other permanent members of the Security Council are doing the same.

So, how is this "the US crossing a line"?

Wow, so you want to Start WWIII to insure world peace, and potentially start a nuclear war. I hope I am completely misreading your statement, because if I am not this may be the most Hypocritical arguement I have read on the forums.
Perhaps he's suggesting trade embargos and sanctions rather than nuking the place?

Perhaps he's suggesting trade embargos and sanctions rather than nuking the place?
Yes, let's intentionally wreck the economy of the world in order to get the US... what an outstanding idea.

Yes, let's intentionally wreck the economy of the world in order to get the US... what an outstanding idea.

Lol, I completely agree with you on this one :)

Yes, let's intentionally wreck the economy of the world in order to get the US... what an outstanding idea.
I didn't say it was a good idea, just pointed out that he wasn't necessarily suggesting a nuclear war.

I didn't say it was a good idea, just pointed out that he wasn't necessarily suggesting a nuclear war.
I'm just wondering how he arrived at the conclusion that this is all the US.

One would think that nations which objected to the Iraq War (such as Russia) are not puppets of the US.

The fact that all five are pushing this to the Security Council after Russia and China made generous overtures to Iran speaks volumes for how this is NOT the US crossing a line.

Perhaps he's suggesting trade embargos and sanctions rather than nuking the place?

All this would do is force the US to use it's internal resources and revert to a Economic Isolationist country. Although we would suffer our exports and aid to foreign nations suddenly stopping would drive many countries into a greater depression, especially in Africa. That idea is very ubsurd

I'm just wondering how he arrived at the conclusion that this is all the US.

One would think that nations which objected to the Iraq War (such as Russia) are not puppets of the US.

The fact that all five are pushing this to the Security Council after Russia and China made generous overtures to Iran speaks volumes for how this is NOT the US crossing a line.

But don' t you know that all aggression stems from the USA (I am being scarcastic). After all no other nation ever goes to war........... or threatens it. (looks at the French occupation of several African nations under UN mandates)

All this would do is force the US to use it's internal resources and revert to a Economic Isolationist country. Although we would suffer our exports and aid to foreign nations suddenly stopping would drive many countries into a greater depression, especially in Africa. That idea is very ubsurd
I refer you to my answer above.

Invade Iran?

Regardless of the merits of such a policy, or whether or not the Iranians deserve this, I have this to ask:
You and what budget/army?

Invade Iran? I don't think so.

Airstrikes? Yes.

Nuclear power. Yes.

Nculear weapons. No. Not under NPT that the Iranians themselves signed for.

If they want nuclear weapons, they can easily withdraw from the NPT. Thus they are entitled to them. Anyone who wants to persue nuclear weapons can - the NPT can easily be left - North Korea did it, and Iran can as well. So, if Iran feels it needs nuclear weapons, they are entitled to them. As NATO itself argues, when a state decides to go to war, the treaty no longer applies; effectively the state leaves the treaty with no notice. If NATO can use that as an excuse for its Nuclear Weapons Sharing programme, Iran can use it as well.

Now, this is of course all hypothetical, as there is no proof that Iran has violated the NPT.

I have an idea... lets make a dozend of threads about Bombing Iran.. That way I can wet at nigth getting horny about how many "moslems" we are going to kill [/UBER sarcasm]

Now, this is of course all hypothetical, as there is no proof that Iran has violated the NPT.

Did you see the news today from the IAEA about documents that they say Iran got that could ONLY be used for making nukes?

All they have to do to violate the NPT is to do full-scale enrichment without IAEA monitoring. In essence, withdraw by action. I think we're already going down that road.

What the UN wants is a way to ensure that Iran won't develop atomic (I can't say nucke-lear) weapons, and Iran so far has steadily refuse to provide those means, unlike Brazil which quickly negotiated and complied with UN inspections, for example.

So, first it'll be down to economic sanctions and political isolation. Iranians don't really like that, but they feel that with the current oil prices they have the upper hand.

I don't think there will be a war, at least not any time soon. The world lacks the means to fight it (i.e. the US is busy) and I don't think the will is there either.

Sure, I could say something like "if the US had chosen not to invade Iraq (which was an optative war) there would be means." But I won't.

What the UN wants is a way to ensure that Iran won't develop atomic (I can't say nucke-lear) weapons...What the UN Want? ...What the UN Want?
You mean like they "Wanted" That for N-Korea and Israel?

What the UN Want? ...What the UN Want?
You mean like they "Wanted" That for N-Korea and Israel?

Maybe it's OK to have nukes as long as you aren't running your mouth saying you want to "wipe" another nation off the map.

Maybe it's OK to have nukes as long as you aren't running your mouth saying you want to "wipe" another nation off the map.so you are saying it is OK for Iraq, Syria, Lybia, SaudiArabia, Venezuela, Bolivia, N-Korea and Israel to have Nukes?

so you are saying it is OK for Iraq, Syria, Lybia, SaudiArabia, Venezuela, Bolivia, N-Korea and Israel to have Nukes?
That's up the the Security Council.

Looks like they don't want Iran to have any.

Stop trying to say this is just a US instigated issue. We've been sitting on the side while the other nations try to get Iran to stop being stupid.

Hopefully Isreal will strike Iran before it has time to mobilize, like Isreal has always done. and after that the U.S. will come in and help out. But, as Isreal always gets the job done quickly and effeciently, the job will be done just in time to occupy Iran =-)

(this whole post is based on the possiblility of an actual war)

What the UN Want? ...What the UN Want?
You mean like they "Wanted" That for N-Korea and Israel?
Well, you're kind of right. The UN is a body with little autonomy and almost no authority of its own over other countries. So, it is wrong to say "what the UN want" or "what the UN should do."

To be precise we would have to say "what the UN Security Council country members want" or "what the UN Security Council country members should do."

The UN is, after all, just a forum for these countries to meet, discuss, and, hopefully, agree on a course of action regarding these issues.

In the case of North Korea and Israel, there was little will and even less consensus about what to do. And the Big Five are always vetoing resolutions.

I wonder what the "Doomsday Clock" has to say about it?

EDIT: Nothing. No movement either direction, so far.

I wonder what the "Doomsday Clock" has to say about it?

EDIT: Nothing. No movement either direction, so far.

Not very flattering things, I assure you.

If they want nuclear weapons, they can easily withdraw from the NPT. Thus they are entitled to them.

Then let them withdraw from the treaty. Until then, they have no entitlement whatsoever.

Now, this is of course all hypothetical, as there is no proof that Iran has violated the NPT.

They procured centrifuges from the Pakis which were meant for enriching weapons grade Uranium. They also admitted having received and have recently handed over bomb designs that they got from Pakistan.

Their excuse is "but...we did not ask for it"...lol. If you believe that then I have some bridges over Chattahoochee river to sell.

Stop trying to say this is just a US instigated issue. We've been sitting on the side while the other nations try to get Iran to stop being stupid.If trying to get one Nuke is Stupid... Then Israel is Fucking Retarded..

and I dont even have an expression to qualify Russia and US.

so you are saying it is OK for Iraq, Syria, Lybia, SaudiArabia, Venezuela, Bolivia, N-Korea and Israel to have Nukes?

I love how your neo-nazi ideas comes through in virtually every post. You instinctively lump Israel in with a bunch of crackpot dictators and terrorist states. You just can't help it, can you?

But strike Israel from that statement and I would agree with you.

If trying to get one Nuke is Stupid... Then Israel is Fucking Retarded..

See?

Then let them withdraw from the treaty. Until then, they have no entitlement whatsoever.

They procured centrifuges from the Pakis which were meant for enriching weapons grade Uranium. They also admitted having received and have recently handed over bomb designs that they got from Pakistan.

Their excuse is "but...we did not ask for it"...lol. If you believe that then I have some bridges over Chattahoochee river to sell.

It is a known and admitted fact that Iran already has ballistic missiles with 2000km range.

I believe that they already have produced, from enriched uranium on hand and designs from Pakistan, a few HEU nuclear weapons, probably in the yield range of just short of a megaton, comparable to US designs for HEU weapons just before the US transitioned to hydrogen bombs.

They want to make MORE. I don't believe they would have been so bold and made the statements about Israel, and demanding that Europe take back all the Jews if they weren't already heading down that path.

Even if they have one or two missiles and nukes ready, they can threaten the Persian Gulf and the oil - enough to make Europe and the US very careful about their next steps. Especially if we don't know where the missiles may be, or where the nukes are. Nukes can also be placed aboard merchant ships, and detonated at sea - something you can't defend against.

I have no doubt that Iran's demands about Israel will escalate. They will demand the dissolution of Israel and the sending of all Jews to other lands. When their demands are not met, they will, at some point, resort to threats and finally, use of nuclear weapons in an asymmetric way.

When their demands are not met, they will, at some point, resort to threats and finally, use of nuclear weapons in an asymmetric way.

Nothing new for me there. We have been under that threat ever since Pakistan went nuclear.

Welcome to the party.

This is for Fass,

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/01/MNGRQH0NQM1.DTL
But faced with mounting diplomatic pressure, in the last week Tehran turned over documents IAEA inspectors had sought for years, including supporting documentation on a 1987 offer from the network of rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan.

Among the information in the papers is a 15-page document "related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components," according to the IAEA report. Iranian officials told inspectors that the network provided the document as part of a package but that the Iranians did not make use of its contents. :rolleyes: