NationStates Jolt Archive

Ahmadinejad: If US Stops Enrichment, Iran Will stop too.

TEHRAN, Iran, Feb. 20, 2007 (CBS/AP) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on Western nations Tuesday to stop their own enrichment programs if they wanted his country to stop its own and return to negotiations.

Ahmadinejad told a crowd of thousands in northern Iran one day ahead of a U.N. Security Council deadline that it was no problem for his country to stop, as long as western nations did the same.

"Justice demands that those who want to hold talks with us shut down their nuclear fuel cycle program too," he said. "Then, we can hold dialogue under a fair atmosphere."

Ahmadinejad spoke in a far more conciliatory tone than the one he usually adopts, avoiding fiery denunciations of the West with a call for talks.

"We are for talks but they have to be fair negotiations. That means, both sides hold talks under equal conditions," he said.

He added, however, that it was unacceptable for countries to demand that Iran stop its nuclear activities without reciprocity.

Sources: CBS / AP /OccN.
my2cents:Fair enough..
I am for a complete ban of nuclear weapons..

I think I have to agree, it seems wholly hypocritical for the US to be pushing for nuclear disarmament while being the only nuclear transgressor in human history, plus being the biggest contributor to worldwide nuclear weapon proliferation. It is Iran's sovereign right as a self-determined state to have nuclear technology, whether you believe them about not wanting weapons or not, it's still their right.

What will be interesting is whether, if and when it comes, Ahmadinejad, having seen the fate of Saddam, backs down to any real demands from the US. How effective has the Iraq invasion been in making any country feel that the US will invade and topple a government if it wants to. At what point will Ahmadinejid fear for his own life over his international position.

And if Iran were to back down and close it's enrichment program, would the world change its mind on the rights or wrongs of the Iraqi invasion?

Ahmadinejad is obfuscating the issue.

Technically, the NPT says that the US can possess and build nuclear weapons along with the other nations mentioned in the agreement.

I mean, I would greatly prefer if nuclear weapons were dismantled and weapons-grade enrichment stopped (except for power purposes, but that's a different thing entirely), but this is not a valid counteroffer. Iran is simply not allowed to have nuclear weapons, and they have to stop enrichment if they don't want to violate the NPT.

Technically, the NPT says that the US can possess and build nuclear weapons along with the other nations mentioned in the agreement.

I mean, I would greatly prefer if nuclear weapons were dismantled and weapons-grade enrichment stopped (except for power purposes, but that's a different thing entirely), but this is not a valid counteroffer. Iran is simply not allowed to have nuclear weapons, and they have to stop enrichment if they don't want to violate the NPT.

Hear Hear

...if they don't want to violate the NPT.they could just leave the NPT.
Like Korea.

they can leave the NPT.

They can. But then again, if they do they're going to be in a pretty tough position, moreso than they already are. Withdrawal from the NPT would probably be interpreted as a pretty hostile move.

they can leave the NPT.

Exactly. If they don't then they have to abide by the rules. So far, they are not doing so. Therefor, the IAEA and the UN are within their rights to do what it wants with Iran within the confines of the treaty.

Withdrawal from the NPT would probably be interpreted as a pretty hostile move.Sovereignty is a hostile stand?

Exactly. If they don't then they have to abide by the rules. So far, they are not doing so. Therefor, the IAEA and the UN are within their rights to do what it wants with Iran within the confines of the treaty.I agree.

I agree.

So do you support Iran getting nukes or don't you?

Sovereignty is a hostile stand?

When you withdraw from a treaty that prevents signatories from developing nukes, you're clearly saying you're going to develop nuclear weapons. That's a pretty hostile stance from any angle; you don't pull out of the NPT if you're just producing power.

When you withdraw from a treaty that prevents signatories from developing nukes, you're clearly saying you're going to develop nuclear weapons. That's a pretty hostile stance from any angle; you don't pull out of the NPT if you're just producing power.

You've hit the nail right on the head.

So do you support Iran getting nukes or don't you?like I said @ the OP: I support a complete ban on WMD and Nukes.

In the meantime (until humanity comes to its senses)
I say the rules must be the same for all Countries..
If Pakistan can have nukes.. so can Brazil.

...you don't pull out of the NPT if you're just producing power.How'bout ..you pull from the NPT.. because the NPT totally sux.
or.. you pull from the NPT because the NTP is corrupted and unfair.
or.. you pull from the NPT because it is eroding your sovereignty.
or you pull from the NTP simply because it stinks

How'bout ..you pull from the NPT.. because the NPT totally sux.

The NPT has its flaws, but you don't pull out unless you want weapons. The treaty can be revised without its participants violating it.

You might - if you're insisting you're simply looking to produce power and another state is using the NPT to insist on inspections, you might want to pull out so that you don't have inspectors checking out your nuclear facilities - Iran could argue that it has a right to protect it's nuclear technology - not saying that's the case but pulling out of a treaty doesn't necessarily entail you're looking to break that treaty.

Thinks he's funny, does he?

How about we just air-burst a tactical nuke over his house and let him see first hand why nobody should have nuclear weapons... And if that doesn't work, Iraq could use a sequel! :D

.. pulling out of a treaty doesn't necessarily entail you're looking to break that treaty.if you pull from the NPT, you cannot longer break it.. just ask Korea.

Hm, i support Ahmadinejad, the United States cant force another country to stop uranium enrichment if they dont stop their own, you have to give to receive.

I think I have to agree, it seems wholly hypocritical for the US to be pushing for nuclear disarmament while being the only nuclear transgressor in human history, plus being the biggest contributor to worldwide nuclear weapon proliferation. It is Iran's sovereign right as a self-determined state to have nuclear technology, whether you believe them about not wanting weapons or not, it's still their right.

Except the fact that everyone knows good ol' Ahmad just wants weapons to wipe Israel off the map. Once a hateful, racist Muslim, always a hateful, racist Muslim. They have no intention of using it for energy, and anyone who believes him when he says he does is being painfully naive.

Hmm, I fully support the US to try and stop nuclear proliferation regardless of the fact they have them themselves. If the world's a classroom I can't think of a better teacher.

Thinks he's funny, does he?

How about we just air-burst a tactical nuke over his house and let him see first hand why nobody should have nuclear weapons... And if that doesn't work, Iraq could use a sequel! :Dmeh..
it would not change the World nuke stats.
We would still be the only Country to ever attack with Nukes.

Hm, i support Ahmadinejad, the United States cant force another country to stop uranium enrichment if they dont stop their own, you have to give to receive.

Correction:
You think the US SHOULDNT stop other countries from enriching uranium.

The US is quite clearly capable of stopping Iran from doing just about anything, including existing.
It would take about 30 minutes, I think.
Thats about the time an ICBM takes to reach its target, isnt it?

meh..
it would not change the World nuke stats.
We would still be the only Country to ever attack with Nukes.

Given the situation we used them in, and being the first ones to really build one that worked and having that advantage for like... 4 or 5 years. It was a necessary end to the worst war in human history, and I can only hope it stays that we're the only ones to ever have used nukes. Did everyone forget our stockpile is -shrinking-? It's not total banning yet, but it's a start.

I say the rules must be the same for all Countries..
If Pakistan can have nukes.. so can Brazil.

Pakistan not a signatory to NPT. Brazil is. So no they can't.

on the OP, Iran is more than welcome to withdraw from NPT. There are provisions in the treaty to withdraw. If they really want nukes that bad, they should announce their intentions and withdraw from it, brave the sanctions like India and Pakistan did and get on with making their damned bomb. These illogical arguments make them look really stupid.

Did everyone forget our stockpile is -shrinking-? It's not total banning yet, but it's a start.It would be a start in the good direction..
Obviously we can only keep that "diet" ongoing.. If Russia and China follow suit..
and later-on France, Israel and the others..

I am not asking/wishing for unilateral disarmament from US. (or Iran.. or Israel.. or any other Country)

Pakistan not a signatory to NPT. Brazil is. So no they can't.

on the OP, Iran is more than welcome to withdraw from NPT. There are provisions in the treaty to withdraw. If they really want nukes that bad, they should announce their intentions and withdraw from it, brave the sanctions like India and Pakistan did and get on with making their damned bomb. These illogical arguments make them look really stupid.

But see they can't withdraw, that would me they -absolutely- intend to produce nuclear weapons. "They only want to use it to generate electricity" so withdrawing is out of the question. Politics is SO much fun...:headbang:

Pakistan not a signatory to NPT. Brazil is. So no they can't.

on the OP, Iran is more than welcome to withdraw from NPT. There are provisions in the treaty to withdraw. If they really want nukes that bad, they should announce their intentions and withdraw from it, brave the sanctions like India and Pakistan did and get on with making their damned bomb. These illogical arguments make them look really stupid.fair enough.

But see they can't withdraw, that would me they -absolutely- intend to produce nuclear weapons. "They only want to use it to generate electricity" so withdrawing is out of the question. You forgot Poland (Korea).

It would be a start in the good direction..
Obviously we can only keep that "diet" ongoing.. If Russia and China follow suit..
and later-on France, Israel and the others..

I am not asking/wishing for unilateral disarmament from US. (or Iran.. or Israel.. or any other Country)

It's a good goal and all but... honestly, I think nukes are here to stay. No country is going to totally give them up. Even if it means just producing tactical variants rather than strategic. That and it's harder to get -every- nuclear power to swear to disarm and actually do it then it is to rip out your own toenails with tweezers. And probably more painful too.

Pakistan not a signatory to NPT. Brazil is. So no they can't.

on the OP, Iran is more than welcome to withdraw from NPT. There are provisions in the treaty to withdraw. If they really want nukes that bad, they should announce their intentions and withdraw from it, brave the sanctions like India and Pakistan did and get on with making their damned bomb. These illogical arguments make them look really stupid.

I would respect the Iranian leaders if they did just what you say. I don't think it is a mystery that they are going to develop nukes.

Someone said earlier in the posting that the US is the biggest proliferaters of nuclear technology. I say that crown belongs to the Russians. If the Russians didn't export nuke tech and missile tech we wouldn't be having the problems that we have today with Iran and N Korea. At least when it concerns nukes.

I would respect the Iranian leaders if they did just what you say. same here..

I don't think it is a mystery that they are going to develop nukes. I agree.

Someone said earlier in the posting that the US is the biggest proliferaters of nuclear technology. I say that crown belongs to the Russians.You are probably right.

__________________________
!!!
What is going on?
I just agreed with every word on Aryavartha post.. and now this post too.
must be a full moon or sumething :D

I say that crown belongs to the Russians.

China-Pak-NK nexus would take that crown. China to Pak and from them to NK, Libya, Iran and possibly KSA.

China-Pak-NK nexus would take that crown. China to Pak and from them to NK, Libya, Iran and possibly KSA.

Wasn't Libya disarming??

Wasn't Libya disarming??

They have. The point was they were proliferated to by the AQKhan's Nukes"R"Us shop.

In fact it is from the "help" of Qaddafi (ratting out as AQKhan would say) that the nexus was exposed in the open. Basically the centrifuges were found to be of the same design that Pakistan has. Rumor has it that Qaddafi was promised that he will not be Saddam'd.

like I said @ the OP: I support a complete ban on WMD and Nukes.

In the meantime (until humanity comes to its senses)
I say the rules must be the same for all Countries..
If Pakistan can have nukes.. so can Brazil.

So in other words, it does not matter what the NPT says. If nations want a nuke, they can have one regardless if they are part of the NPT.

Hmm, I fully support the US to try and stop nuclear proliferation regardless of the fact they have them themselves. If the world's a classroom I can't think of a better teacher.

I can think of SEVERAL better teachers than the classroom bully that Bush is.

I'm sure we all can but George Bush is not the USA, he may be representative of a fair amount of people in the USA, I doubt the majority, but he's not the USA itself.

I'm sure we all can but George Bush is not the USA, he may be representative of a fair amount of people in the USA, I doubt the majority, but he's not the USA itself.

No but he is the elected leader of the Country and that makes him our:

1) Chief Diplomat
2) Command-in-chief
3) Chief Legislature (approves or vetos bills)

With that in mind, he makes the decisions.

No but he is the elected leader of the Country and that makes him our:

1) Chief Diplomat
2) Command-in-chief
3) Chief Legislature (approves or vetos bills)

With that in mind, he makes the decisions.

Too bad for you he doesn't get to make them alone, though.

Too bad for you he doesn't get to make them alone, though.

Your right, he can't. That is also a very good thing and I am glad for the Checks and balances we have to curb it.

Hmm, I fully support the US to try and stop nuclear proliferation regardless of the fact they have them themselves. If the world's a classroom I can't think of a better teacher.you cant think of better models?
there is several in Europe.. allow me to give you one example:
Switzerland.

No but he is the elected leader of the Country and that makes him our:

1) Chief Diplomat
2) Command-in-chief
3) Chief Legislature (approves or vetos bills)

With that in mind, he makes the decisions.yeah.. hes gets the last word.
at the end of the day.. it is his call.

Much as I love Switzerland, when it says 'jump' the world doesn't tend to react too quickly. It has no potential to change that situation either. Of the countries/regions that have real global influence, which I would list as - USA, Japan, Middle East, Russia, China and Europe - only the USA, Russia and China (potentially) have any real military power.

I pick USA. We can debate their rights or wrongs but they've never aggessively siezed a country with the clear intention to subdue its people. You can of course argue that they've just done that with Iraq but, and only personally, I'd disagree.

A teacher with no authority isn't very effective.

Sovereignty is a hostile stand?

Honestly?

Yes. Especially the level of autonomy that Iran is perceived as seeking.

We live in a multilateral world and everyone involved must realize that.

Honestly?

Yes. Especially the level of autonomy that Iran is perceived as seeking.

We live in a multilateral world and everyone involved must realize that.

Well if the US wants to play the realpolitik argument, here's one right here. The sanctions against Iran will do nothing, eventually other nations will be forced to resume trade for their own economies, and Iran can just use their oil reserves or cut off oil trades to the West. And the US can't do a thing about it, they can't risk conflict with a large and modern military.

The funny thing with the NPT is that states not member to the treaty were not to get any support in building their nuclear capacities. States member to the treaty could get support in building a nuclear program for peaceful means. Strangely those outside the treaty have had more support for their nuclear program than the current regime Iran.

Not to mention the states with Nuclear weaponry should reduce their arsenal under the treaty.