U.S. to Give Iran Incentives to Stop Nukes: Europe Will Back U.N. Referral If It Fails

The Bush administration has made an offer of economic incentives to the Iranian government if it abandons its nuclear program The incentives include WTO membership and the sale of commercial aircraft parts to Iran. In exchange for offering the incentives, the Bush administration received a firm commitment from France, Britain, and Germany to refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council.



This is a shift in policy. Given all the changes going on, its the right move at the right time. It's a bold venture, but if it comes to pass as the administration wants its scope would be huge. Iran abandons its nuclear program, peace between the Palestinians and Israel, Syria basically neutralized, Iraq and Afghanistan with democratically elected governments. Huge risks and huge rewards if it works. The Iranians would be wise to take this offer very seriously. With the EU3 backing a U.N. showdown, the stakes will raise quite a bit if it comes to that.

[edit on 3/11/05 by FredT]

VIENNA, Austria - The European Union will support U.S. calls to bring Tehran before the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions unless it agrees to scrap the technology that can be used to make nuclear arms, according to a document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.
EU to Support U.S. Over Iran Sanctions

Iran has dismissed as "too insignificant to comment about" a US offer of economic incentives if Tehran abandons parts of its nuclear program that could be used to develop atomic weapons.

www.abc.net.au...

Yeah, its postioning itself. Bargaining is a way of life and bboth sides will try to get the most / give the least in this scenarion. Good find though

Oh, and what about thier supposed terrorists ties? So, the U.S. bargains against a power that may cause it's own economic endevours some regression, while wavering this countries fundamentalist regime which it has chided so vehemently?

...

Deep

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Oh, and what about thier supposed terrorists ties? So, the U.S. bargains against a power that may cause it's own economic endevours some regression, while wavering this countries fundamentalist regime which it has chided so vehemently?

You crack me up

"Bush is a war monger itching to invade"

then

"Bush is a hypocrite, cause he is negotiating with Iran"


Stop it your flip flops are making me dizzy

I never stated any of those.

Deep

Even if Iran were to be referred to the UN council and France abstains and Britain supports a motion.

It can still be vetoed by Russia and China, though China is more likely to abstain based on previous voting patterns.

Nonetheless, a chance for peace is always welcome.

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
I never stated any of those.

Deep

Well the "Bush is a hypocrite, cause he is negotiating with Iran" does seem to fit with your post, however, you are right, the "Bush is a war monger itching to invade" should be better directed at other members here.

My apologies

FredT

But a senior Iranian negotiator in nuclear talks with the European Union, Cyrus Naseri, dismissed the U.S. move as a mere gesture, saying "it is too ridiculous to be called an offer."

"It is like trading a lion for a mouse," he told CNN. "Would the United States be prepared to give up its own nuclear fuel production against a cargo of pistachios delivered in truckloads?"
Iran dismisses U.S. policy shift

"No pressure, bribe or threat can make Iran give up its legitimate right" to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, the remedying of some of the faults and the addressing some of the restrictions that were imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran without any cause will not prevent Iran from getting its legitimate right" to develop a nuclear energy capability, Mr Asefi said. "The restrictions regarding [aircraft] spare parts that were of no military use should have not been imposed from the beginning, and lifting them is not an incentive. ...Getting into the WTO is the right of all countries of the world"

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 12-3-2005 by Sep]